IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1687 OF 2011 Date:30.08.2011 Between:- M/s.Uma Maheswara Ice Factory, rep.by Proprietor K.Venkata Prasad Rao .. Petitioner And The Superintending Engineer, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam and others. .. Respondents ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated 09.02.2011, in I.A.No.1673 of 2009 in O.S.No.96 of 2003 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Bhimavaram, whereunder and whereby, petition filed under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) for issuing a notice to the respondents/defendants directing them to produce original documents listed in the petition before the lower Court so as to enable the petitioner/plaintiff to get them marked as exhibits, was dismissed on the ground that the original documents were served on the petitioner and he filed those documents along with the plaint in S.R.No.2719 of 2002 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bhimavaram and the present petition was filed only to drag on the proceedings. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner filed O.S.No.96 of 2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram against the respondents for declaration that proceedings No.S.A.T./9826/ELR/D.BVM/BVM/P.F.818/D.No.480, dated 14.11.2000, of defendant No.3 as illegal, arbitrary and not binding on the plaintiff, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disconnecting service connection No20160. Pending suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1673 of 2009 for issuance of notice to the respondents for production of some original documents. 4. The allegation made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition is that only the photocopies of the documents have been served by the respondents on the petitioner and the original documents have to be produced by the respondents for the purpose of proving the case. 5. According to the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, the original documents now sought to be summoned are public documents and therefore, the question of summoning them does not arise. 6. Unless the petitioner files an application under Rule 162 of the Civil Rules of Practice for obtaining certified copies of those documents and the same has been rejected by the respondent, the question of filing the present application does not arise. 7. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to apply for certified copies of those documents under Rule 162 of the Civil Rules of Practice and file them into Court. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 30th August, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1687 OF 2011 Date:30.08.2011 AMD