IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3575 of 2010 Between: Pulicherla Bala Thimma Reddy & another. ..... Petitioners AND Subbasani Vivekananda Reddy .....Respondent Counsel for the petitioners : Sri A. Veeraswamy Counsel for the respondent: Sri P. Veera Reddy The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3575 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 21.06.2010 in I.A.No.355 of 2010 in I.A.No.221 of 2010 in O.S.No.114 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal (for short, “the lower Court”). The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondent is defendant No.2 in the abovementioned suit. The petitioners - plaintiffs filed I.A.No.221 of 2010 for interim injunction. In the said application, the respondent herein filed I.A.No.315 of 2010 to permit him to examine some of the parties to Exs.B8 to B12 marked on his behalf, to enable him to prove the said documents and his possession in respect of the petition schedule property. As the petitioners have alleged that the said documents were fabricated, the respondent filed I.A.No.355 of 2010 for summoning the Tahsildar, Mahanandi for causing production of the revenue records and to give evidence. This application was opposed by the petitioners by filing a counter affidavit. The main objection taken by the petitioners in their counter affidavit is that the respondent failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 129 of the A.P. Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1980. The Court below, having considered the respective pleas of the parties, allowed the application. At the hearing, Sri N. Jayasurya, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the order of the Court below is not sustainable because the respondent failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 129. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that his client has complied with the provisions of Rule 129 by filing certified copies of the documents marked as Exs.B8 to B12 and that since the petitioners have disputed the authenticity of those documents, he is constrained to file I.A.No.355 of 2010 for summoning the Tahsildar, Mahanandi for production of the revenue records and giving evidence. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the respondent has got the revenue records marked as Exs.B8 to B12. As the petitioners have taken the stand that the said documents are fabricated, the respondent filed the abovementioned I.A. for summoning the Tahsildar. The learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that Rule 129 (3) envisages that before making an application for summoning the witness, the applicant should have applied for certified copies of the concerned documents and that those copies have not been granted by the authority concerned. As noted above, the respondent not only applied for the certified copies, but they were obtained, filed and got marked as Exs.B8 to B12. Therefore, in my opinion, the respondent has complied with the requirements of Rule 129 before filing the abovementioned I.A. seeking summoning of the Tahsildar. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the order of the lower Court for being interfered by this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The lower Court is directed to dispose of the pending I.As., expeditiously. As a sequel to disposal of the revision in the manner indicated above, CRPMP.No.4681 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 24.09.2010 ES