IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3396 OF 2010 Between : Prathibha Apartments Residents Association ... PETITIONER A N D Prathibha Constructions and others. … RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3396 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order and decree, dated 24.06.2010 in I.A.No.195 of 2010 in O.S.No.17 of 2008, on the file of the XIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Order XVI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) to summon the Director General of Fire and Emergency Services and the Zonal Commissioner, GHMC, North Zone, Hyderabad, for the purpose of giving evidence pertaining to the notices issued, was dismissed on the ground that those documents were marked without there being any objection and admitted facts need not be proved. 2. O.S.No.17 of 2008 on the file of the XIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Secunderabad, was filed by the petitioner herein/plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,30,362/-. In the said suit the above Interlocutory Application was filed, which was dismissed. Challenging the same, the presence Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the defendants may raise objection with regard to the truth or validity of contents of those documents at later point of time and therefore, the purpose of proving of correctness of the contents of the notices issued by the two persons now sought to be summoned, is to prove the contents of documents and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents contended that those documents were already brought on record without there being any objection and that the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. There cannot be any dispute that under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, admitted facts need not be proved. Notices issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and the Director General of Fire Services Authorities are already marked without there being any objection. Once the documents are marked without there being any objection, the law is well settled that the contents therein are admitted. But, the apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the defendants may raise the objection with regard to truth or otherwise of the contents of those documents. In view of the fact that the truth or otherwise of those documents have not been challenged in the cross-examination of P.W.1, it can be said that the defendants impliedly admitted the correctness of the contents of those documents. Considering these aspects, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU, J MARCH, 30 2011. YVL