IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6286 of 2009 Between: Nallamalla Emmaniyulu and others ... PETITIONERS AND N. Rathnamaiah and another ... RESPONDENTS ORDER: Heard the learned counsel. 2. This court ordered notice before admission on 20-01-2010 and granted interim suspension for a limited period, which was subsequently extended for a limited period. 3. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order made in I.A.No.960 of 2009 in I.A.No.603 of 2008 in O.S.No.145 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni. 4. The respondents herein filed an application under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for summoning the Tahasildar, Devanakonda to produce 10 (1) Village Account for Fasli 1417. The learned Judge after formulating the point for consideration at paragraph No.4, recorded reasons and ultimately allowed the application. 5. The learned Judge also observed that the decision reported in Anand Prasad Agarwalla v. Tarkeshwar Prasad and others[1] is not applicable to the case on hand. It is no doubt true that normally when discretion is exercised by the learned Judge such orders not to be justified while exercising the Civil Revisional Jurisdiction. But however, it appears this summoning of the originals had been thought of for the purpose of inviting a decision in an application for temporary injunction. It is needless to say that the temporary injunction application to be decided in the light of the respective stands taken by the parties and the documents, which may be produced. Several of the details, which may have to be established at the time of final disposal of the suit i.e., at the stage of trial, the same need not be followed at the stage of deciding interlocutory application. Be that as it may, it is stated that the Tahasildar already produced the documents. Hence, it is for the learned Judge to consider this aspect in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Anand Prasad Agarwalla’s case cited supra and take appropriate decision in this regard. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J April 20, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6286 of 2009 April 20, 2010 [1] 2001 (2) CCC 189 (SC)