THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.3352 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.451 of 2009 in the Court of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, against the respondents, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property in Sy.No.644 of Bachumpalli Revenue Village. He based his claim upon an alleged long possession of Government land by himself and his ancestors. Certain documents were filed in support thereof. The respondents filed written-statement, alleging that the plea of the petitioner is not correct. It was also alleged that the documents relied upon by the petitioner are forged. The petitioner filed I.A.No.301 of 2010 under Order XVI Rules 1 and 6 C.P.C., with a prayer to summon the Tahsildar, of Kadapa Mandal, to produce the entire original record, in relation to Sy.No.644. The petitioner stated that the filing of the I.A., became necessary, in view of the averments in the written-statement. The application was opposed by the respondents. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 31-05-2010. Hence, this revision. Sri J. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client has based his claim upon certain proceedings or copies issued by the Revenue Department, and when the veracity thereof is challenged, the only alternative is to prove them by summoning the original record, through competent authority. He submits that the trial Court dismissed the I.A., on a hyper-technical ground. The suit filed by the petitioner is the one, for perpetual injunction. He has to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and a semblance of right, and that the respondents are interfering with his possession, without any basis. The trial of the suit is yet to commence. It is not unnatural or uncommon that the facts pleaded by the petitioner herein in his plaint are contradicted by the respondents. The truth or otherwise of the facts pleaded by the parties to a suit would be decided only after trial. The prayer made by the petitioner in I.A.No.301 of 2010 is vague, general and without any precision. Even the facts pleaded in the affidavit are not clear and specific. The only reason pleaded for summoning the Tahsildar to produce the records is the doubt expressed by the respondents, about the genuinity of the documents, relied upon by the petitioner. Further, the prayer is to the effect that the Tahsildar must be required to produce the entire record, in relation to Sy.No.644. Such a prayer can not, at all, be accepted. If acceded to, the step would amount to requiring the Tahsildar to prove the case of the petitioner. The trial Court has taken correct view of the matter. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.03-08-2010. KO