HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.R.P.No.4377 of 2007 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 24- 08-2007 passed in I.A.No.354 of 2007 in O.S.No.23 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs. They filed I.A.No.354 of 2007 under Order 16 Rule 1(2) of C.P.C. for production of the documents from Tahsildar, Rambilli Mandal, on the ground that they are very much necessary. After due enquiry, the lower Court dismissed the I.A. on the ground that unless the petitioners exhaust their remedy in getting the certified copies of the required documents from the Tahsildar, they cannot claim any relief under Order 16 Rules 1(2) of C.P.C. Being aggrieved, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners argued that though they have taken steps to get the certified copies from the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar did not oblige to issue the same, and therefore, they filed the I.A. before the lower Court to summon the documents. Now the point for consideration is whether the order, dated 24- 08-2007 is sustainable? Admittedly the petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit and they contend that they purchased the suit schedule property from the registered G.P.A. holder under three registered sale deeds in the year 1986. They filed the I.A. under Order 16 Rule 1(2) of C.P.C. to summon the documents from the Tahsildar. Though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contend that petitions are filed before the Tahsildar for issuance of the certified copies of the required documents, no documentary evidence is filed to that effect. The same was also observed by the lower Court in the impugned order stating that except mentioning in the petition that the petitioners filed a petition before the Tahsildar claiming to issue the certified copies of settlement Fair Adangal for some faslies, the petitioners did not file any proof to show that they filed such application before the Tahsildar or that it was refused by him. Unless the petitioners obtain endorsement from the Tahsildar that they cannot furnish the certified copies of the required documents, the petitioners cannot file the I.A. under Order 16 Rule 1(2) of C.P.C. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the order of the lower Court, in my view, is sustainable and needs no interference. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date: 25-11-2011 YCR