THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.2520 of 2008 ORDER: This revision is preferred against the order, dated 8.4.2008 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam in I.A.No. 2789 of 2007 in I.A.No.312 of 2007 in O.S.No. 61 of 2007 whereunder and whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order XVI Rule 3 CPC to issue summons to Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedagantyada to produce the Pattas bearing R.C.No.277/90 in Survey No.43/1 of Pedagantyada, issued in favour of the respondent and his brother, was dismissed. 2. The petitioners are the defendants. The respondent, who is plaintiff, filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. 3. The plea of the first petitioner is that he is the bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property and is in possession of the same and that he is paying the tax and the electricity charges to the concerned authorities. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of 2 D-form pattas said to have been issued in favour of his wife and brother by Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedagantyada vide R.C.No.277/90, in April, 1991, in Survey No.43/1 and the said pattas are fabricated. Therefore, it is essential to examine the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer. 4. On the other hand, the respondent-plaintiff filed his counter denying the allegation that the Pattas filed by him are fabricated and that the application filed filed by the petitioners under Order XVI Rule 3 of CPC is not maintainable. 5. The trial court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the I.A. on the ground that the application filed under Order XVI Rule 3 is not maintainable at the interlocutory stage of the suit and that the genuineness of the documents would be decided at the stage of trial. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the record. The trial in the suit is not yet commenced. As pointed out by the trial court, the I.A. under Order XVI Rule 3 of CPC is not maintainable at the interlocutory stage. Further the trial court has rightly observed that the authenticity of the documents filed by the respondent can be decided in the main suit. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Hence, the C.R.P. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J 30.10.2009 Stp