IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH (30TH) DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.80 and 94 of 2010 Between: Surasani Nagi Reddy … Petitioner And: Tatikonda Appa Rao … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.80 and 94 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two revision petitions arose out of the order dated 02.12.2009 in IA Nos.1413 and 1411 of 2009, respectively, in OS No.1 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, wherein the said applications filed under Order XVI Rules 1 to 6 CPC for issuing summons to the proposed witnesses and to produce respective records, were dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent. Perused the record. As the two revision petitions arise out of the orders in the same suit, both the revisions are disposed of by way of common order. 3. The respondent herein filed suit. During the course of trial, the petitioner-defendant filed the present applications seeking issuance of summons to ADE, AP GENCO, KTPS and to produce certain documents so as to disprove the evidence of PW.3 and to show that PW.3 could not have approached PW.1 at his house on 01.08.2007. According to the petitioner-defendant, the plaintiff’s house is situated on the other side of Kinerasani Project River in Pandurangapuram village and PW.1’s house is situated at Paloncha town and on account of heavy floods on 01.08.2007 in the river, there was no possibility for PW.3-plaintiff to cross-over and come to the house of PW.1. According to the respondent, there is a railway track and path way by the side across the river connecting two villages and during rainy season and at the time of heavy flow of water in the river, the residents of the two villages would use the railway track and path way for crossing the river and thus, notwithstanding the floods, there is accessibility from the village. He would therefore contend that the records sought to be summoned from the office of the ADE, APGENCO to show the flood level in the river on 01.08.2007 is totally irrelevant. 4. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the petitioner/ defendant did not make any efforts to obtain any certified extracts of the water level register of the river from the concerned authorities. It is always open to the petitioner-defendant to contend and prove that the plaintiff-PW.3 had no access to reach PW.1’s house on 01.08.2007 by other evidence. By showing the level of flood water in the river on 01.08.2007 itself by production of the concerned registers, the possibility of plaintiff-PW.1 being available at the house of PW.1 on 01.08.2007 cannot be ruled out. The summoning of witnesses and production of documents as sought for by the petitioner-defendant for the purpose of establishing the probability assumed by the petitioner is not at all warranted. The impugned orders refusing to issue summons do not therefore call for interference. 5. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 30.03.2011 bss