THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.4597 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is preferred against the order, dated 10.09.2009 passed by the V Additional Senior Civil Judge, (FTC), Visakhapatnam, in I.A.No. 193 of 2009 in O.S.No.95 of 2003 whereunder and whereby the application filed by the revision petitioners under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC to issue summons to the Settlement Officer-cum-Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam with a direction to produce the orders passed in S.R. No.11 (a) 2/05 F-2 (RC.No.787/06 F.2) dated 25.09.2006, was dismissed. 2. The petitioners are the defendants. The respondents, who are the plaintiffs, filed the suit for declaration of title and for possession of the suit schedule property. The plea of the petitioners is that the plaint schedule property is in R.S.No.13 of Madhavadara Village and they are the owners under a registered sale deed dated 30.5.1990. The claim of the respondents is that their mother was the lessee of the suit schedule property and after Inams Abolition Act, she was granted Patta and after her death, the respondents became the owners of the property and when the Government tried to evict them, they filed W.P.No.1672 of 1992 before this Court and the same was allowed directing the Government not to take possession forcibly. The respondents filed the said writ petition behind the back of the petitioners though they are in possession of the suit schedule property. Based on the orders in the writ petition, the respondents filed O.S.No.310 of 1992 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge for injunction against the Government. The second petitioner filed I.A.No.479 of 1998 to implead him as a party and the same was dismissed, and appeals A.S.No. 365 of 1996 filed by the petitioners and A.S.No.162 of 1998 filed by the Government were dismissed. The petitioners filed O.S.No.292 of 1992 for injunction against the Government was also dismissed. The respondents are alleged to have got property in R.S.No.42 and claim that R.S.No.42 was re-numbered as R.S.No.13. The respondents made an application before the Settlement Officer-cum–Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam for grant of Patta and the same was dismissed vide his order dated 25.9.2006 and they have suppressed that fact. Therefore, the present application was filed for summoning the Settlement Officer-cum-Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam with a direction to produce the order dated 25.9.2006 before the court. 3. The respondents filed their counter stating that they filed an application before the Settlement Officer-cum- Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, for grant of Patta and the same was dismissed by his order dated 25.09.2006 and against the said order, they preferred revision and the same is pending before the Director of Settlement, Hyderabad. The respondents further averred that the civil court declared their title over the suit schedule property and the appellate court as well as this court confirmed the same. The petitioners are aware of the order of the Settlement Officer- Joint Collector much prior to filing of the present application and that without filing an application before the authority to obtain certified copy, they have directly filed the present application, that too at the stage when the suit was coming up for arguments of defendants. 4. The trial court, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioners have not taken steps to obtain the copy of the order dated 25.09.2006 passed by the Settlement Officer-cum- Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam and that the petitioners, having knowledge about the order from the date of its passing, filed the present application at the stage when the suit was coming up for arguments of defendants. 5. Heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The suit is of the year 2003. It is seen that the petitioners filed the present application at the fag end of the suit proceedings i.e. at the stage when the suit was coming up for arguments of defendants. The petitioners have not filed any proof to show that they have made application to the Settlement Officer-cum-Joint Collector to obtain certified copy of the order, dated 25.09.2006 prior to filing the present application. Further, the petitioners being aware of the order, dated 25.09.2006 did not file application at the appropriate time. It is needless to mention that the respondents-plaintiffs have to establish their title to the suit schedule property on the strength of their own case and cannot depend upon the weaknesses of the defendants’ case. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Hence, the C.R.P. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J 25.09.2009 Stp