IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5427 of 2009 Between: 1. V. Gopi, S/o. Late Kondala Babu, Aged about 40 yrs, R/o. Zinc Quarters, Visakhapatnam. 2. V. Aruna, W/o. V.Gopi, Aged about 36 yrs, R/o. Zinc Quarters, Visakhapatnam. … Petitioners And P. Appa Rao, S/o. late Appala Swamy, R/o. Kotta Nakkavanipalem, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioners : Sri N. Ranga Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.5427 of 2009 ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 15.10.2009 in I.A.No.842 of 2009 in O.S.No.111 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District, whereby the petitioners’ application for issuing summons to the Head, H.R. Department, Hindusthan Zinc Limited, Visakhapatnam, to produce the records pertaining to occupation of Quarter No.WB- 80 allotted by the Hindusthan Zinc Limited, Visakhapatnam, has been dismissed. In the application, the petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit filed for recovery of certain amount on the pro-note, which was allegedly executed by them in favour of the respondent, pleaded that the claim of the respondent that the pro-note was executed by the petitioners at quarter No.WB-80, Zinc Quarters, Visakhapatnam, was incorrect and therefore in order to prove the said fact summoning of the Head of H.R. Department, Hindusthan Zinc Limited, Visakhapatnam, was necessary. The Court below rejected the said plea on two grounds, namely; the petitioners filed the application at a belated stage i.e., after completion of evidence of PW.Nos.1 to 4 and that in Ex.A1 – promissory note, there was no reference to the number of the quarter. Having carefully heard the arguments of Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record, I am of the view that the findings of the Court below do not call for any interference. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the revision petition, CRPMP.No.7405 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 20.11.2009 ES