IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.Nos.2628 AND 2855 OF 2010 Date:29.03.2011 C.R.P.No.2628 OF 2010:- Between:- Vartha, rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director, Mr.Gireesh Sanghi and another. ..Petitioners/Defendants And M/s.Vizag Profiles Group, rep.by its Director Veeramchineni Venkata Krishna Rao and others. .. Respondents/Plaintiffs And C.R.P.No.2855 OF 2010:- Between:- Vartha, rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director, Mr.Gireesh Sanghi and another. ..Petitioners/Defendants And M/s.Vizag Profiles Group, rep.by its Director Veeramachineni Venkata Krishna Rao and others. .. Respondents/Plaintiffs COMMON ORDER:- C.R.P.No.2628 of 2010 is directed against the order, dated 22.04.2010, passed in I.A.No.290 of 2010 in O.S.No.143 of 2006 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed under Order XVI Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) to issue witness summons to concerned persons to produce relevant records of Gajuwaka Tahsildar, Revenue Department Surveyor reports, APIIC Permissions, VUDA Office permissions, District Collector enquiry and investigation report, which were submitted by the Revenue officials on land encroachments of plaintiff No.1 profiles and for marking those documents, was dismissed. 2. C.R.P.No.2855 of 2010 is directed against the order, dated 22.04.2010, passed in I.A.No.291 of 2010 in O.S.No.143 of 2006 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed under Order XVI Rule-1(2) read with Section 151 C.P.C. to summon M.R.O., Gajuwaka, Vice Chairman, VUDA, Planning Officer, VUDA, M.R.O., Gajuwaka, Commissioner, APIIC, Visakhaptnam, The Bureau Incharge, Sakshi Telugu News paper, Visakhapatnam, Bureau Incharge, Andhra Prabha Telugu News Paper, Bureau Chief of Andhra Jyothi Telugu Newspaper and the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, was dismissed. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The petitioners filed these petitions to issue summons to concerned witnesses to produce certain records for marking them as documents and also to issue summons to the concerned persons to examine them as witnesses. The affidavits filed in support of the petitions do not disclose whether the petitioners applied for certified copies of those documents now sought to be summoned. 5. Order XVI Rule 1(2) C.P.C. requires the party to indicate in the application the purpose for obtaining witness summons. Such disclosure enables the Court to decide whether the witness is necessary and his examination would be helpful in deciding the dispute. The Court must exercise the power to ensure that neither it defeats the ends of justice nor causes undue delay in litigation. The witnesses sought to be summoned are to be testified with reference to certain documents. The certified copies of those documents are not obtained and filed into Court. 6. Sub Rule (3) of Rule 129 of the A.P. Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 reads as follows: “No Court shall issue such summons unless it considers the production of the original necessary or is satisfied with the application for a certified copy has been duly made and has not been granted. The Court shall in every case record its reasons in writing and shall require the applicant to deposit in Court, before the summons is issued, to abide by the order of the Court, such sum as it may consider necessary to meet the estimated cost of making a copy of the document when produced.” 7. Unless the petitioners exhaust the remedy available under Sub Rule (3) of Rule 129 of Civil Rules of Practice, they are not entitled for the relief prayed. The prescribed procedure has not been followed. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petitions and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the petitioners from applying the certified copy of those documents and file the same before the trial Court, if necessary, by calling concerned persons to prove those documents. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 29th March, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.Nos.2628 AND 2855 OF 2010 Date:29.03.2011 AMD