HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.330 of 2010 Between: Smt. Ch. Vijaya, W/o. late Shankaraiah, Aged about 54 years, Household, R/o.H.No.3-4-457, New Rayapura, Sudhanagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal District, and another … Petitioners And Shabana Tabassum, W/o. Mohd. Mukran Ali, Aged about 34 years, Housewife, R/o.3-3-251, Enugulagadda, Hanamkonda, Warangal District … Respondent Order: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed aggrieved by order dated 19-01- 2010 passed by the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal in I.A.No.1002 of 2009 in O.S.No.965 of 2006. The respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1002 of 2009, filed the said suit for injunction simplicitor. It is the case of the respondent-plaintiff that he has purchased the suit schedule property from its earlier owner and possessor, who was examined as P.W.4. When the vendor of the respondent-plaintiff was examined as P.W.4, in the cross-examination, a suggestion was made to him to the effect that he has no title or possession to the suit schedule land and his father had already sold the entire land under registered sale deeds to Sri G. Vaikuntam and Smt. P. Swarnalatha. Further, pleading that the sale in favour of the said G. Vaikuntam was denied by P.W.4, interlocutory application in I.A.No.1002 of 2009 is filed to summon the documents from the office of the Sub-Registrar. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners- defendants that documents have already been filed with regard to the sales effected by the father of P.W.4. In that view of the matter, if P.W.4 has no saleable rights, from the documentary evidence which is already filed, petitioners-defendants can prove the same. But, on the aforesaid ground, they cannot seek directions to summon the documents from the office of the Sub-Registrar, as prayed for. I have perused the order, under challenge, passed the court below, wherein valid reasons are recorded for rejecting the I.A. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this revision petition, so as to interfere with the same, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed, in the circumstances, without costs. ___________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J February 3, 2010 MRR