HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1225 OF 2011 DATE:8-04-2011 BETWEEN Galla Veera Brahmam …Petitioner AND Chanumolu Bhaskar Rao …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1225 OF 2011 ORDER: Petitioner-defendant in the suit in O.S.No.608 of 2009 instituted for recovery of money, filed the impugned I.A.No.580 of 2010 to summon the Station House Officer, Thiruvuru Police Station to produce the records pertaining to the complaint lodged by him on 30.1.2009 against the plaintiff stating that he borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- from Ch.Krishna Rao, who is the brother of the plaintiff-respondent herein and at that time, said Krishna Rao obtained signatures of petitioner on two blank promotes, that though he repaid the said amount, said Krishna Rao did not return the blank promotes and when questioned, he misrepresented that they were misplaced and promised to return them as and when they are traced out. One of the said promissory notes was pressed into service by the plaintiff in filing the suit and therefore, he lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Tiruvuru Police Station complaining about the cheating act of said Krishna Rao and plaintiff. As the police did not take any action, he preferred a private complaint before the concerned Magistrate but during his cross-examination, a suggestion was put to him that the police enquired the matter and filed a report stating that the complaint is false. Therefore, it necessitated him to summon the Station House Officer, Tiruvuru Police Station to produce the records pertaining to the complaint lodged by him. On dismissal of the said I.A., present revision is filed to revise the said order. Since the petitioner lodged a complaint, he can always obtain a copy of the said complaint or the copy of the report filed before the Magistrate in that regard, from the police and can file the same into the Court. Therefore, it is not necessary to summon the Station House Officer, Tiruvuru Police Station. No infirmity is discernable with the impugned order passed by the lower Court warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. APRIL 08, 2011 Tsr.