IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.2023 of 2011 Between: Dr. Y. Lakshmana Murthy .. Petitioner AND Kalva Bhaskar and another .. Respondents ORDER: In spite of personal service of notice before admission, none entered appearance on behalf of the 1st respondent. Heard Sri G. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 26-04-2011 in I.A. No.329 of 2011 in O.S. No.8 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Mahabubnagar. The petition was filed by the revision petitioner stating that the 1st defendant made constructions deviating from the permission granted by the municipality in spite of his objections, against which he made representations to the municipality. The construction of all the three floors was stated to have been completed projecting the roof and beams towards Northern side. The plaintiff, therefore, desired the Town Planning Officer, Mahabubnagar Municipality to give evidence while producing the municipal permission, etc., in respect of these facts. He also stated that the officer expressed his inability to give evidence unless summoned through Court. This application was contested by the 1st respondent stating that in the absence of any relief sought for against the Municipality, the officer could not have been summoned and when the constructions made by the 1st defendant do not affect the plaintiff and when the plaintiff himself made various admissions in his cross-examination in this regard, he cannot complain of any violation and the plaintiff has no right to examine the proposed witness on his behalf. The trial Court in the impugned order opined that an employee of the 2nd defendant cannot be summoned to prove the case of the plaintiff. The trial Court relied on B . Venkat Ramireddy v. K. Srinivas[1] and the trial Court considered any evidence by the witness about the official records, but not about the physical features of the constructions to be irrelevant. Consequently, the trial Court dismissed the petition without costs. The said order is challenged by the plaintiff in this revision on the ground that the 2nd defendant did not choose to contest the suit and remained ex parte, due to which the information, which has to be placed before the Court for effective adjudication, can be secured only by summoning and examining the Town Planning Officer. Hence, the plaintiff desired the impugned order to be reversed. The point for consideration is whether the plaintiff should have been permitted to summon the witness along with the required documents for an effective and complete adjudication of the questions in controversy in the interests of justice ? Point: A copy of the plaint shows that the basic complaint of the plaintiff against the 1st defendant is about the 1st defendant deviating in his construction from the plan sanctioned and approved by the municipality. The very relief sought for in the suit is to declare the constructions to the extent of deviation to be illegal and for consequential mandatory and perpetual injunctions for removal of the offending constructions and preventing such offending constructions, while damages also were incidentally claimed. The basic questions in issue between the parties in the suit are, therefore, concerning what was permitted to be constructed by the municipality and what was actually constructed, with the 1st defendant denying any deviations from the sanctioned plan or any interference with the rights of the plaintiff. The municipality itself, though impleaded as the 2nd defendant, admittedly remained ex parte and unless the municipal permission, sanctioned plan, etc., are admitted in evidence, the plaintiff may not have a reasonable opportunity of probablising any deviations from the sanctioned plan by producing other evidence. Even the precedent relied on by the trial Court only frowned at a general and vague request but not a request to summon a witness for a definite and specific purpose. It should also be noted that the issue involved in the decision was about summoning an individual as a Court witness and the learned Judge himself recognized the right of a party to examine such witnesses as he intends to as his witnesses. The plaintiff was compelled to summon the Town Planning Officer as his witness due to the municipality remaining ex parte in the suit thereby excluding any scope for production of any evidence on its behalf in the suit. The plaintiff, of course, has to prove his own case as noted by the trial Court, but his request to examine the Town Planning Officer with reference to the documents sought to be summoned is an obvious permissible reasonable step in that direction, for rejection of which there are no reasonable grounds. The trial Court was more influenced by the possible inability of the witness to speak about the physical features of the constructions made, but in appreciating the permissibility of such constructions as disclosed by the physical features that have to be proved, the issue has to be examined with reference to the municipal permission and sanctioned plan. Therefore, the impugned order has to be reversed. In the result, the order, dated 26-04-2011 in I.A. No.329 of 2011 in O.S. No.8 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Mahabubnagar is set aside and the said I.A. No.329 of 2011 is allowed. The plaintiff be, therefore, permitted to summon the Town Planning Officer, Mahabubnagar Municipality for giving evidence and producing documents in respect of municipal permission No.G1/BA/346/424/2004, dated 09-02-2004 on payment of the requisite process and necessary expenses of the witness. The civil revision petition is allowed accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 05-08-2011 Svv [1] 2005(3) ALT 674