THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1545 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 16.02.2010, in I.A.No.54 of 2010 in O.S.No.251 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to reopen the matter for further evidence on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff, was dismissed on the ground that in spite of giving ample opportunity to the petitioner to produce the original document i.e., L.P.4/84 of Anantapur Municipal Corporation through his witness, he has not filed the same in time and therefore, there are no reasonable grounds to allow the petition. 2. Heard. 3. A petition is filed by the petitioner to produce the original document i.e., L.P.4/84 of Anantapur Municipal Corporation, the lay out plan of the suit schedule property, from Municipal Corporation, Anantapur. That petition was allowed. On receipt of summons, the Officer of Municipal Corporation was present before the trial Court on 18.01.2010 and requested time to produce the said document. But, the trial Court closed the evidence on behalf of the petitioner and posted the matter for respondents/defendants’ side evidence. Hence, the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the witness i.e., Municipal Officer, Anantapur, was present on 18.01.2010 and since the original lay out plan of the suit schedule property is in the office of Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, the witness could not bring the same; that the trial Court ought not have closed the evidence on petitioner’s side on that ground and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 5. It is not the case of the petitioner that he applied for the certified copy of the layout plan relating to the land in dispute and that the Municipal authority refused to give the same. Under Rule 129 of the Civil Rules of Practice, when a certified copy of the original document maintained by the public authority can be granted, the same should have been obtained and filed by the petitioner instead of summoning the Officer of Municipal Corporation. Hence, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order and the revision petition is devoid of merit. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order will not preclude the petitioner in applying for a certified copy of the layout plan in respect of the suit schedule property and for filing the same before the trial Court in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J November 12, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1545 OF 2010 Between: G. Ramappa .....PETITIONER AND U. Venkata Prasad and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1545 OF 2010 November 12, 2010