IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5989 of 2009 Between: Mamidala Anitha, W/o.Vasudeva Rao, Hindu, aged about 30 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.D.No.26- 1-1173, Chandramoulinagar, Nellore, presently residing at Kavali … Petitioner And Burri Sarojanamma, W/o.Kotaiah, Hindu, aged about 50 years, residing at North Mopur village, and another … Respondents Order: This civil revision petition, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is filed aggrieved of the order dated 14-10-2009 passed, in E.A.No.3 of 2009 in E.A.No.290 of 2008 in E.P.No.66 of 2006 in O.S.No.217 of 2001, by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. The aforesaid application filed by the petitioner, under Order XVI Rules 2 and 6 CPC, seeking to summon the Tahsildar, Nellore and to cause production of original patta granted to her, original challan and other documents as shown in the schedule, was dismissed. The first respondent/decree-holder obtained a decree for recovery of money against the second respondent/judgment-debtor who is the mother of the petitioner. In E.P.No.66 of 2006, house bearing Door No.26-1-1173 was attached. Protesting such attachment, the petitioner filed E.A.No.290 of 2008 on the ground that the said house is constructed by her on Government land in Sy.No.78/3, which is regularized in her favour. When such objection was raised, in the E.P. itself, a finding was recorded to the effect that except the said house, no other property was held by the judgment-debtor and the petitioner is claiming ownership over the said house pursuant to a settlement deed stated to have been executed by the second respondent. In the said E.P. proceedings, the petitioner was also examined as R.W.3. Overruling the afore-stated objection of the petitioner, attachment orders were issued by the Court below. In this revision petition, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that merely because an objection was raised by the second respondent in the E.P. proceedings; merely based on the aforesaid objection; the court below ought not to have rejected the application filed by the petitioner. So far as application in E.A.No.3 of 2009 is concerned, the petitioner is seeking directions to summon the Tahsildar, Nellore to cause production of original patta granted to her, original challan and other documents as shown in the schedule. If patta was granted in the name of the petitioner, she could as well obtain a certified copy of the said patta and original challan filed in support of her case in E.A.No.290 of 2008. But, merely on the ground that the said patta was issued by the Tahsildar, Nellore, the petitioner cannot seek to summon the Tahsildar for production of such original patta stated to have been issued in her name. In any event, having regard to the reasons recorded by the court below, I see no ground to interfere with the impugned order, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) November 10, 2010 MRR