THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2328 of 2009 Date: 24.09.2010 Between: Pattepu Venkata Durga Rao … Petitioner and Pamarthi Padmaja … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2328 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 12.2.2009, in I.A.No.445 of 2008 in A.S.No.3 of 2005, passed by the Special Sessions Judge-cum-X Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Order 16 Rules 2 and 4 read with Order 41 Rule 33 of C.P.C., seeking to issue summons to the Income Tax Officer, Gudivada to appear before the Court below and produce the search and seizure report, list of documents and other particulars of the papers, including the promissory notes seized in the income tax raid. 3. It appears that the respondent-plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.49 of 1997 against the petitioner-defendant before the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, for recovery of the amount based on a promissory note and the same has been decreed. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed appeal A.S.No.3 of 2005 before the Special Sessions Judge-cum- X Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the defendant filed the present application seeking to issue summons to the Income Tax Officer, Gudivada and sought to produce certain documents. The lower appellate Court dismissed the said application on the ground that it is a belated one and the documents sought to be produced are no way related to the dispute. Hence the present civil revision petition. 4. As could be seen from the impugned order, it appears that the defendant had kept silent for about 10 years and now, for the first time, that too in an appeal, filed the present application seeking to summon the Income Tax Officer and produce certain documents. Under those circumstances, the lower appellate Court had rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. 5. I see no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower appellate Court and the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA 24.09.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2328 of 2009 24.09.2010 (Msr)