IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2576 OF 2011 Between: Nabikunta Cheruvula Ayacut Rythula Abhyuda Sangam,Rep. by its Secretary, …Petitioner A n d Vadlapatla Venkata Balakrishna Rao and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2576 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 06.06.2011 in I.A.No.733 of 2010 in O.S.No.1268 of 2011, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein, the plaintiff, under Order XVI Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC, seeking issuance of summons to the Executive Engineer (Irrigation), Eluru and Village Revenue Officer, Tangellamudu, to produce certain documents, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 3 to 8. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed the suit for mandatory injunction directing respondents 3 to 8 to take action against respondents 1 and 2 for causing obstruction over the plaint schedule properly of an extent of Ac.29-30 cents comprising two tanks and also for permanent injunction. The defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. Necessary issues were settled and trial has also been completed and evidence of both sides was recorded and the matter stood posted for arguments. At that stage, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.733 of 2010 seeking issuance of summons to the Executive Engineer (Irrigation), Eluru to produce inspection report pertaining to inspection of the suit tanks and the VRO, Tangellamudu to produce the topographical plan pertaining to R.S.No.16 which is described as a tank. The impugned order does not disclose that any counter was filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein. Respondents 3 to 8, however, filed a counter stating that the parawise remarks are privileged documents and they cannot be produced under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act. By the impugned order, the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application on the ground that it was filed belatedly and that no list of witnesses is also filed. 4. The petitioner is not seeking production of parawise remarks. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is stated that in the parawise remarks the schedule property was described as tank based on the inspection conducted by the Executive Engineer (Irrigation). What is sought to be produced is only inspection report and topographical plan, but not the parawise remarks. The objection raised in the counter filed by respondents 3 to 8 has, therefore, no relevance. 5. No doubt, the application is filed after closure of the evidence and when the matter stood posted for arguments. According to the petitioner, they could not file the application earlier as they came to know the said documents only subsequently. 6. Be that as it may, it is only just and proper that the parties to the suit are permitted to produce the entire material before the Court which would enable the Court to adjudicate upon the dispute in an effective and comprehensive manner. The documents sought to be produced viz., the inspection report and topographical plan of the alleged tank are public documents and there cannot be any tenable objection for their production from the custody of the competent authorities i.e., Executive Engineer (Irrigation) and Village Revenue Officer. In the interests of justice and in the interest of providing a fair opportunity to the parties to place the entire material before the Court, it is considered that the petitioner can be permitted to seek issuance of summons to the Executive Engineer (Irrigation) for production of the inspection report and to the Village Revenue Officer for production of the topographical plan. The said documents can be received subject to proof and relevancy and the trial Court would consider the same at the appropriate stage. 7. The impugned order, dismissing the application, is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 25th August, 2011 Lrkm.