THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.2847 and 5419 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.328 of 2004 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, for the relief of perpetual injunction, against the respondent, in respect of Ac.0.89 cents of land mentioned therein. The respondent, on the other hand, filed O.S.No.319 of 2005 in the same Court, against the petitioner, for the same relief, but in respect of a larger extent of land, viz., Acs.4.15 cents. In both the suits, the petitioner filed applications, under Order XVI Rules 1 to 5, 7 and 15, with a prayer to summon the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, Chinnaganjam Mandal, for production of documents mentioned therein and for his appearance to depose as witness. The case of the petitioner was that he was granted patta in respect of the suit schedule property i.e. Ac.0.89 cents of land, whereas the respondent is claiming similar right in respect of larger extent of land. The respondent opposed the applications by filing counter. He pleaded that it is for the petitioner to obtain necessary documents by making applications to the concerned authorities. The applications were dismissed through separate orders, dated 22.06.2011 and 11.11.2011, respectively. Hence, these two revisions. Heard Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned counsel for the petitioner. The suits were filed for the relief of perpetual injunction. Hardly there exists any necessity to decide the question of title, except that it shall be referred to as a subsidiary issue. It is for the petitioner or the respondent, as the case may be, to prove their plea as to possession in their respective suits. It may be true that the petitioner as well as the respondent are claiming rights on the strength of assignment made by the Government. In case there exists such an assignment, the relevant document can be placed before the Court. The validity or otherwise thereof hardly falls for consideration, since the scope of the suit is very limited. At any rate, the Tahasildar cannot be expected to depose on the principal issue, namely, as to who, among the petitioner and the respondent, are in possession of the property. The trial Court has taken correct view of the matter. The C.R.Ps. are accordingly dismissed. The trial Court is directed to club both the suits and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:12.12.2011 GJ