THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2040 of 2011 ORDER: The very application in I.A.No.181 of 2011 filed by the petitioners therein including the revision petitioner was misconceived and this revision is more so. The revision petitioner in this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the first defendant in O.S.No.1697 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The first respondent herein filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the scheduled property, a flat in the fourth floor and for an identified parking space on the ground floor characterized in the plaint as parking lot No.8, which he claimed to had been allotted to him as a part of the flat allotted to him in the fourth floor. The revision petitioner and the second defendant are resisting the plaintiff’s claim for permanent injunction inter alia asserting that the very construction of the fourth floor and allotment of the flat to the plaintiff thereat is illegal as the entire floor was unauthorized. They also dispute the allotment of “parking space No.8” to the plaintiff and claim that this space was earmarked for these defendants, who are spouses. After the trial of the suit had commenced; the plaintiff’s side evidence was concluded and the revision petitioner/first defendant was also examined as D.W.1 on 13.12.2010, and after a Commissioner was appointed to inspect the suit premises, the revision petitioner and the second defendant (his wife) filed I.A.No.181 of 2011 purportedly under Order XVI Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) to summon the Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, with the approved plan of the residential complex bearing reference No.BA 1190/98/ACP-III; along with entire record pertaining to the said building approval available with the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. The pleaded purpose (as per the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.181 of 2011) is to marshal before the trial Court evidence as to the unauthorized nature of the fourth floor and to substantiate the claim of the defendants that parking space No.8 was not allotted to the plaintiff but was earmarked for them. It is axiomatic that approved building permits would neither contain the names of the prospective purchasers of flats nor would contain demarcation of parking lots or the names of the persons allotted/alienated specified parking lots. Whether the flat allotted to the plaintiff is authorized or unauthorized has no bearing on the question when the suit is for grant of an injunction simplicitor and in respect of a parking lot. In the above circumstances, the litigative strategy of the revision petitioner and the second defendant in O.S.No.1697 of 2008 in filing I.A.No.181 of 2011 appears to be fundamentally misconceived and the application was rightly rejected by the trial Court as such. This Court discerns no revisable error in the order dated 07.04.2010 warranting interference, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This revision is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 24th June, 2011 GHN