THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.743 of 2011 March 25, 2011 Between: Annapoorna Agro Machine Services, Represented by R.Sambasiva Naidu, S/o.Narayanaswamy Naidu ... Petitioner And Nagarjuna Financier (Regd.), represented by its Managing Partner, P.Jayachandra Reddy, S/o.P.Govinda Reddy ...Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.743 of 2011 ORDER: The respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.25 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. He filed the suit for recovery of the amount in connection with the chit transactions. The petitioner – first defendant; is opposing the suit, inter alia, contending that the plaintiff utilized his services for another chit company. He alleged that in both the firms, partners are the same. During the trial, petitioner filed I.A.No.718 of 2010 under Order XVI Rules 4 and 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to summon the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle–I, Tirupati, to cause production of the list of partners of Suvera Hatcheries, Chittoor. By the impugned order dated 05.10.2010, the application was dismissed by the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, against which, the present civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Counsel for the petitioner raised the only plea that the Court below failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. A perusal of the order impugned in the revision would belie the submission that the Court below failed to exercise the its jurisdiction. While dismissing the application, the Court below observed as follows. So in such circumstances payments made by the respondent herein to any of such Firms and discharge of the amount to the plaintiff Firm can not be established as different Firms have different entity and transaction. Moreover the respondent admits that some of the partners of the plaintiff Firm are also the partners in Suvera Hatcheries. Hence the admitted fact need not be proved. It is for the petitioner herein to establish the payment of the amount by means of receipts or any other document. Moreover it is observed that information with regard to partners of the said Firm can be obtained on Right to Information Act or can obtain certified copy of the partnership deed from the Registrar of Firm or Income Tax Department. He need not summon said persona and that official is not concerned with the said Firm to give evidence on behalf of said Firm. The Court below not only exercised the jurisdiction vested in it but also appreciated the factual background correctly, while exercising the jurisdiction to reject the application under Order XVI Rules 4 and 7 of CPC. The civil revision petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. _________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) March 25, 2011 YS