HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4640 OF 2011 Date:21-12-2011 Between: Mohammed Dawood. - - - Petitioner/ Appellant. And Shaik Mohd. Younus and ten others. - - - Respondents/ Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4640 OF 2011 ORDER: Being aggrieved by the order dated 30-09-2011, passed in R.A. SR. No.3535 of 2011, on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The Petitioner herein is the Appellant and Respondents herein are the Respondents in R.A. SR. No.3535 of 2011. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the lower Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The suit schedule premises originally belonged to one Syed Anwar Ali. The petitioner herein was a tenant of Syed Anwar Ali. One Shaik Mohd. Afzal during his lifetime purchased the property from Syed Anwar Ali. The Respondents are claiming their right through Shaik Mohd. Afzal. The petitioner herein filed R.C. No.153 of 2007 on the ground that he is in doubt as to whom he should tender the rents and accordingly sought permission to deposit the rents and started depositing Rs.2,000/- p.m. on the ground that the rent is only Rs.2,000/- p.m. The stand of the respondents herein is that the rent is Rs.7,500/- p.m. Their further case is that the petitioner herein was depositing rent of Rs.7,500/- p.m. into the joint account of the original owner Syed Anwar Ali and his wife. It is also their case that since they are claiming that the rent is Rs.7,500/- p.m. the burden lies on them to prove the said fact and for the purpose of proving the said fact, they filed I.A. No. 76 of 2010 in R.C. No.153 of 2007 praying to hand over summons for service on the Bank Manager, Vijaya Bank, Vijayanagar Colony and to appear before the said Court to give evidence and to produce the bank account particulars of the Petitioner herein i.e. Mohd. Dawood, Proprietor of M/s. Sagar Traders. Though the petitioner herein filed a counter and contested the matter, learned Rent Controller by order dated 17-08-2011 allowed the said Petition. 4. It appears that on behalf of the respondents they got examined RW.2 and also marked Ex.X-1, which is a certified copy of the bank statement. So, the question that falls for consideration before the learned Rent Controller is whether the cheques received by the original owner Syed Anwar Ali into the joint account of himself and his wife originated from the bank account of the petitioner herein or not? 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner herein filed R.A. SR. No.3535 of 2011. The learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad by impugned order dated 30-09-2011 passed the following order : “Heard the advocate for appellant. Admittedly impugned order was passed for issue of summon to a witness. The order passed by Rent Controller is purely procedural in nature. Impugned order does not affect the rights and liabilities of landlord and tenant in main case. Therefore, appeal is not maintainable. Hence, appeal is rejected.” Challenging the same, this Revision has been filed. 6. The point that arises for consideration is whether the Appeal before the Appellate Authority is maintainable? 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate Court erred in holding that the Appeal is not maintainable. His main submission is that since the substantial rights of the parties would be affected by the impugned order, the appeal is maintainable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a judgement of this Court in case between B.Y. Ramulu V. Budhan Saheb Mosque Committee, Secunderabad and another[1]. In that case the first respondent in the said Revision filed an eviction petition against the second respondent and during the pendency of the said proceedings, the revision petitioner therein who is a third party to the proceedings filed an application to implead himself contending that he is the tenant in the petition schedule premises therein. However, the Rent Controller dismissed the said I.A. holding that the presence of the proposed party is not necessary to arrive at a just conclusion. He was also un-successful in the Appeal. In that case, the Revision Petitioner wanted to come on record contending that he is the tenant in respect of the petition schedule premises. It was held that since the said order affects the rights of the parties, therefore it was appealable under Section 20 of the Act. 8. In this case the learned Rent Controller has allowed the application to summon the Bank Manager with the relevant records. Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the burden lies on the party who asserts certain fact to prove the same. For the purpose of proving the fact asserted a party is entitled to adduce oral and documentary evidence. In fact, the trial Court should not close the doors at the initial stage and allow the parties to adduce all the relevant evidence and grant reasonable time to the parties. Because, once the trial is closed, it will be difficult for the parties to adduce evidence at the Appellate stage or at the revisional stage. On facts, it is clear that the judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Since it is only an order passed in procedural matter on an Interlocutory Application, the Appeal is not maintainable and therefore the appellate Court is perfectly justified in holding so. Accordingly, with the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date:21-12-2011. Dsh. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR 62 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4640 OF 2011 December, 21, 2011 DSH. [1] 2002 (3) ALD 377