IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4233 OF 2010 DATED:12.11.2010 Between: Gattala Ramachandraiah … Petitioner And Gattala Pitchaiah and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4233 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dt.27.7.2010 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, in I.A. No.89 of 2009 in O.S. No.121 of 2008. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No.121 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali. He filed an interlocutory application in I.A. No.89 of 2009 to direct the first respondent - defendant to produce certain documents, which are shown as annexures 1 to 6. A counter affidavit was filed by the first respondent - defendant by producing certain documents marked as annexures 3, 4 and 5, and in the counter affidavit he categorically stated that the documents marked as annexures 1, 2 and 6 are not in his custody. In that view of the matter, the Court below closed the application recording a finding that as the documents sought to be produced are public documents, it is open to the petitioner to obtain the certified copies, if the petitioner rely on them and, if so advised. In this revision, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents - defendants ought to have produced all the documents, in the absence of which the Court below erred in closing I.A. No.89 of 2009. From the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent – defendant it is clear that the documents which are in his possession have been produced and with regard to the other documents marked as annexures 1, 2 and 6 he categorically stated that they are not in his custody. Hence, when it is not established that the said documents are in the custody of the firsts respondent/defendant and when the first respondent denied possession of such documents, no direction can be issued as prayed. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dt.27.7.2010, passed by the Court below, warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 12.11.2010 bnr