THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5605 of 2009 Dated:01.12.2009 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, And others. ….Petitioner And P.Lakshmaiah. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5605 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) This revision petition by the State of Andhra Pradesh and four of its Officials of Irrigation Department (N.S.Canal Circle) is against the order dated 23.07.2009 in E.A.No.476 of 2008 in E.P.No.137 of 2007 in O.P.No.22 of 2000. By the said order the Court of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowed the said execution application filed by the respondent (hereafter called, contractor) and directed the petitioners herein to produce the documents evidencing the payments made by them to the contractor. The work of construction of Cross Regulator-cum-Single Lane Bridge of N.S.Right Main Canals was entrusted to the contractor under an agreement of 1982-1983. Disputes arose. The matter went before arbitrator. An award was passed by the arbitrators on 30.10.1991 for about Rs.4,30,000/- with interest thereon. He then filed a petition under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, to make the award rule of Court. The same being, O.P.No.22 of 2000, was allowed and the award was made rule of the Court. As amount was not paid, the contractor took out execution in E.P.No.137 of 2007. The petitioners herein filed counter affidavit alleging that the award amount was paid to the contractor, and therefore, the execution petition is misconceived. At that stage contractor filed E.A.No.476 of 2008 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking a direction to the petitioners herein to produce documentary evidence in the proof of the allegation that payment is made. Learned Government Pleader for Arbitration submits that the contractor himself admitted having received the payments, and therefore, it is erroneous to direct production of records relating to 1982-1983 and that it would not be possible to trace the records after about twenty five years. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned Government Pleader. We are afraid, we cannot agree with the submission. In their counter affidavit they alleged that E.A is baseless and that the same is filed to extract more money from the Government in spite of admission by the contractor. We do not find any such admission on the part of the contractor. Even otherwise, E.P was filed for the decretal amount of Rs.4,29,776/- and interest thereon. Therefore, applying the principle adumbrated under Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden lies on the person who would fail if the allegation made by such person is not proved. In that view of the matter we do not find any grave error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference in the revision. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 01.12.2009 vs