HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4964 of 2010 Date: October 21, 2011 Between: 1. Kovvuri Sangaiah & 3 others … Petitioners and 1. Kovvuri Rakesh & 2 others … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4964 of 2010 O R D E R: The order dated 08.9.2010 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in I.A. No.1793 of 2010 in O.S. No.92 of 2008 is called in question. 2. The said application was filed by defendants 1, 2, 3 and 5 in the suit, the petitioners herein, under Order XIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 129 of the Civil Rules of Practice, 1980, to summon specified documents from the Station House Officer, PS Ramachandrapuram, which were filed in Crime No.146 of 2008 in C.C. No.432 of 2009. By the order under revision the trial court dismissed the application. 3. The case of the petitioners herein is that the documents filed before the police authorities, being the birth certificates of respondents 1 and 2 and the admission registration certificates issued by Sharada High School, Kothaguda, Ranga Reddy District, were necessary for proving the case of the first defendant. 4. Rule 129 (3) of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1980, states to the effect that no Court shall issue summons for production of records in the custody of a public officer other than a Court unless it considers the production of the original necessary or is satisfied that the application for a certified copy has been duly made and has not been granted. 5. In the present case, no averment is made by the petitioners in their affidavit filed in support of the application that they had applied for certified copies of the documents in question but were not provided the same. As the documents in question are in the nature of public documents, production of certified copies would be sufficient and the Court would not normally insist upon production of the originals. The trial court also observed to the same effect and stated that the defendants could obtain certified copies of these documents and file the same into Court. 6. The petitioners therefore failed to fulfil the requirements stipulated in Rule 129 (3) and the trial court was fully justified in rejecting their application filed under the said provision. This Court sees no infirmity in the order under revision, warranting interference. 7. The civil revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: October 21, 2011. BSB