THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.5032, 5033, 5034 AND 5035 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: Since common question is involved in all these revision petitions, they are taken up together and being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. The applications filed by the petitioner under Order XVI, Rule 1 CPC in O.S.Nos.339, 342, 343 and 345 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur were dismissed by the impugned orders. The petitioner by the instant applications sought for summoning of Sri P.Kodanda Rami Reddy, the then in-charge Executive Officer and Inspector of Endowments Department, Guntur, to give evidence and to produce documents, if any, in the custody of the said the then Executive Officer. The Court below dismissed the said applications holding that the applications are vague in nature as the prayer to produce the documents if any clearly goes to show the uncertain plea and the applications are filed only to prolong the litigation for obvious reasons. Hence, these revisions are filed. On a bare perusal of the affidavits filed in support of the applications, admittedly the petitioner has not specified the documents, which are to be produced nor any particulars of the documents are given. The petitioner is not certain as to what documents he wanted to be produced by the witness. Giving direction to a witness to produce documents without specifying the documents, which are required to be produced by him, is not sustainable or permissible under law. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders so as to interfere with the same under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed and are, accordingly, dismissed. __________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J Dated 30th October, 2009 vrn