THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3019 of 2011 Dated 09th September, 2011 Between: Vanam Damodar …Petitioner And Vanam Laxmamma and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G.Simhadri Counsel for respondents: --- The Court made the following: ORDER: This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 25.06.2011, in I.A.No.177 of 2011, in O.S.No.332 of 2007, on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge at Suryapet. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition and for a declaration that the registered sale deed bearing No.5629/2007, dated 18.06.2007, executed by defendant No.11 in favour of defendant No.32, the transfer of patta made by the Tahsildar, Suryapet vide office letter, dated 15.07.2002 and issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds to him as null and void. After filing of the written statement by the defendants, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.177 of 2011, for summoning the entire file bearing No.G/4669/2022 from the office of the Tahsildar, Suryapet for the purpose of confronting the same to defendant No.11 in his cross- examination. Counter affidavits were filed by defendant Nos.11 and 32 resisting the said application. The Court below dismissed the said application. At the hearing, Sri G.Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that proper reasons have not been assigned by the Court below in dismissing the application. He further submitted that as defendant Nos.11 and 32 have suppressed the material facts and raised false pleas, it has become necessary for his client to confront them with the original record of the Tahsildar’s office. In the order under revision, the Court below has observed that the suit was filed in the year 2007, while the proceedings in respect of which, the record is sought to be summoned pertain to the year 2002 and that even though the plaintiff had the opportunity of obtaining certified copies of the record, he has failed to obtain and file the same in the Court. It is further observed that the plaintiff failed to assign any reasons for not filing the relevant documentary evidence pertaining to the record of the Tahsildar’s office, which clearly shows lack of diligence on his part in properly prosecuting his case. On a careful consideration of the reasoning of the Court below, I am of the opinion that the order under revision does not suffer from any error warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. For the above-mentioned reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.4313 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 09th September, 2011 VGB