IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN :PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2687 of 2010 Between: Chintalapalli Chandrasekhar Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND C. Sriram Reddy and others ..... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 11-06-2010 passed in I.A.No.299 of 2009 in O.S.No.134 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Tract Court) at Mahaboobnagar, whereby and whereunder learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XVI Rule VI r/w.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.134 of 2008. He filed the suit for declaration of title and cancellation of the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property. He filed I.A.No.299 of 2009 under Order XVI Rule VI r/w.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon the Tahsildar, Kothur mandal to produce the document in file No.B/305/1989 dated 02-12-1989. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner/plaintiff stated that he filed an application to the Tahsildar, Kothur mandal on 01-10-2008 seeking the certified copy of the document in file No.B/305/1989. But the Tahsildar neither furnished nor rejected the application and therefore, he is constrained to file the application to summon the Tahsildar, Kothur mandal, for production of document in file No.B/305/1989 dated 02-12-1989. 3. The contesting defendants filed counter resisting the application. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner has not established the very existence of such file in the office of the Tahsildar, Kothur mandal. For better appreciation I may refer paragraph No.2 of the counter-affidavit which reads as follows: “It is false to say that the respondents have filed the petition before the Tahsildar, Kothur in File No.B/305/89 in which it was shown that the suit land was given to petitioner by relinquishing their rights in respect of Ac.4-21 gts., of land in Sy.Nos.801 and 802 respectively. It is false to say that the petitioner has made application to the Tahsildar on 01-10-2008 with a request to furnish certified copy of the petition and that the Tahsildar has refused to give the certified copy. The petitioner has not filed any proof to show that as to why the Tahsildar has refused to furnish the alleged copy and not filed any proof to show that he made such an application. In fact the alleged file is not existence and false number was given by the petitioner and he appeared to have created the said file with the collusion of concerned officials. In fact, there is no such file in the office of Tahsildar and hence the question of summoning Tahsildar for producing the document from the said file does not arise. On this ground alone the present petition is fit to be dismissed.” 4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that the petitioner failed to place on record any proof of the Revenue Office not furnishing the certified copy of the document, by order dated 11-06-2010. The said order is assailed in this revision. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner placed on record copy of the application submitted before the Tahsildar, Kothur mandal, before the trial Court but the trial Court failed to take note of the same. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner has not placed any material as to making his efforts to secure copies of the documents from the office of Tahsildar, Kothur and therefore, the trial Court is justified in dismissing the application. 8. The petitioner filed the application under Order XVI Rule VI r/w.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The rule reads as hereunder: “Summons to produce document:- Any person may be summoned to produce a document, without being summoned to give evidence, and any person summoned merely to produce a document shall be deemed to have complied with the summons if he causes such document to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.” 9. The petitioner stated in his affidavit filed in support of the application that he filed an application seeking for certified copies of the document in file No.B/305/1989 but he has not been furnished copy of the same. The Photostat copy of the application submitted to the Tahsildar, Kothur has been filed along with the material papers. A reading of the copy application shows that he made an effort to get the copies of the documents, but his efforts proved to be futile and therefore, he moved the petition under Order XVI Rule 6 r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon the Mandal Tahsildar, Kothur, along with the record No.B/305/1989 dated 02-12-1989. 10. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the respondents stated that the relinquishment deed said to have been filed before the Tahsildar is inadmissible in evidence and therefore, there is no need of summoning the said file even if such file is available on record. 11. The respondents are at liberty to raise objection as to admissibility of the document when it is tendered in evidence. It is suffice to say that the petitioner has made an effort to secure the file bearing No.B/305/1989 dated 02-12-1989 and his effort proved to be futile and therefore, he moved petition to summon the Mandal Tahsildar to produce the document in file No.B/305/1989. 12. In view of the above discussion, I find that the order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained and accordingly the same is hereby set aside and consequently I.A.No.299 of 2009 in O.S.No.134 of 2008 stands allowed. _____________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J January 25, 2011. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2687 of 2010 January 25, 2011