THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 5286 of 2009 Dated: 07.07.2011 Between: A.Jagan Mohan Rao, Nampally, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And C.V.Naga Raju, Secunderabad. … Respondent THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 5286 of 2009 O R D E R: This revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 13.08.2009 in I.A.No.7 of 2008 in I.A.No.677 of 2007 in O.S.No.600 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the suit is filed for eviction and recovery of the possession. The respondent herein/defendant filed I.A.No.7 of 2008 under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) to receive the letter dated 10.11.1999 in evidence on his behalf. He also filed I.A.No.235 of 2009 to receive the General Power of Attorney dated 17.03.2009 executed in favour of his father to represent his case on his behalf. Both the said applications were allowed on 13.08.2009 recording that the advocate for the plaintiff reported no objection to allow the petition in spite of counter. The present revision petition is filed assailing the order passed in I.A.No.7 of 2008 contending that the plaintiff in fact filed a counter and opposed I.A.No.7 of 2008 but it was wrongly recorded by the Court below that his advocate reported no objection to allow the petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. As held in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayam[1] statements recorded by the Judges are ought to be accepted. Even where the happenings in the court are wrongly recorded, the proper course is to file Review Petition before the same Court. Hence even assuming that plea of the petitioner that it was wrongly recorded by the Court below by mistake that the advocate for the revision petitioner reported no objection to allow the petition, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to move an appropriate application before the Court below putting forth his case that his counsel had not reported no objection to allow the petition. In the circumstances, the interference by this Court at this stage is not warranted and accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the Court below. If any such application is made, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders be passed in accordance with law. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 07.07.2011 Note: Issue C.C. by Monday. KLP [1] AIR 1982 SC 1249