HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRAKUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2867 of 2011 Date: July 22, 2011 Between: Prafullakumar Mohanty … Petitioner/ Plaintiff And 1. The Gram Panchayat, Belluputia, rep. by its Sarpanch, Agguna Surya Rao, Belluputia & 3 others. … Respondents/ Defendants * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2867 of 2011 O R D E R: This revision is directed against the order dated 28th June 2011 in I.A. No.64 of 2011 in O.S. No.4 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sompeta. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the original suit. He filed the petition I.A. No.64 of 2011 seeking a direction to the Tahsildar, Mandasa, to produce the Adangals and 10(1) village accounts of Survey No.92/1 of Bellupatia village. In the original suit he claimed the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. 3. Respondents 2 to 4 filed counter contending inter alia that the petitioner earlier filed similar application and accordingly the Tahsildar, Mandasa, produced documents which were available in his office and that now the documents sought by the petitioner are not available in their office and could not be traced out. 4. The lower Court holding that the petitioner can cross- examine the Tahsildar, Mandasa, when he is examined before the Court and no purpose would be served by ordering the petition, since the respondents had taken a specific stand that the documents are not available, dismissed the petition. Challenging the said order, this revision has been filed. 5. The only point that arises for consideration is whether there are grounds to interfere with the order of the lower Court? 6. Admittedly, the Tahsildar, Mandasa, the second respondent, had taken a specific stand that the records sought for by the petitioner are not available and therefore he could not produce the same. What is the effect of non-production of records and whether adverse inference has been drawn against the defendants or not, or the issues to be decided by the lower Court at the time of disposal of the main case, the petitioner as well can certainly argue that for non-production of documents by the defendants, adverse inference has to be drawn against the defendants. 7. In the above circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court. However, this does not prevent the authorities from producing the records as and when such record is traced out or intimate the Court and the petitioner about the tracing of the records. Then the petitioner may obtain certified copies of those documents and file the same and again may revive the application for summoning those documents. 8. Subject to the observations made supra, the civil revision petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: July 22, 2011. Note: Issue CC in three days. //B.O.// BSB