THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5308 and 5323 of 2011 November 30, 2012 Between: T.Padmavathi, W/o.T.Chalamaiah … Petitioner/ Defendant AND The Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Kadapa … Respondent/ Plaintiff THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5308 and 5323 of 2011 ORDER: These civil revision petitions are filed against separate orders dated 18.9.2012 passed in I.A.Nos.664 and 665 of 2012 (I.As) in O.S. No.652 of 2009 (the suit) on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge,Kadapa. The I.As were filed for reopeniong the suit for the purpose of summoning certain documents and also the Public Information Officer in the Office of the plaintiff corporation to give evidence with reference to those documents. The applications were dismissed on the ground that the pleas were not tenable, aggrieved by which these civil revision petitions are filed. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as they are arrayed in the suit. The claim of the plaintiff is that the schedule property belongs to it and without any manner of right the defendant has been trying to interfere with the property. According to the defendant he is the owner of the property and the plaintiff got no right therein. It is also according to the defendant that he filed O.S. No.855 of 2004 for injunction in respect of the same property which was dismissed. It is contended on behalf of the defendant that admittedly the Public Information Officer sent a letter to the husband of the defendant, namely, T.Chalamaiah claiming that the suit filed by the defendant i.e., O.S.No.855 of 2004 against the corporation was dismissed following which the defendant preferred A.S.No.94 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Kadapa where the appeal was allowed. Thereafter the Corporation filed O.S.No.655 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa claiming the property as that of the Municipal Corporation in which the Corporation obtained temporary injunction. Further the defendant dug pits and laid RCC pillars from canal in spite of the fact that the injunction order was in force. Therefore the pillars raised twelve in number were removed on 08.5.2010 under Section 405 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 because it happened to be encroachment of the property of the Corporation. Therefore the said observation is relevant with regards to the claim of the defendant over the property by reason of which it is necessary to examine the Public Information Officer on behalf of the defendant and call for the relevant documents. In the circumstances stated above, I feel that the examination of the Public Information Officer, and calling for the relevant documents to be marked in the suit filed by the Municipal Corporation is necessary. Hence, the order passed by the Court below is not tenable. The civil revision petitions are, accordingly, allowed. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. _________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J) November 30, 2012. YS