HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2736 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner against the docket order dated 23-04-2010 in I.A. No.87 of 2010 in O.S. No.899 of 2008 passed by the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The respondent herein is the plaintiff and the petitioner herein is the defendant before the Court below. 3. Originally, the plaintiff filed the above I.A. seeking to summon the documents viz., (i) Service books and acquittance registers of himself, M/s. K. Chidambaram, L.B. Papaiah Sastry, P.Jayakar Premanath and Fancy Satya Raj for the years 1998 to 2008 and (ii) Files relating to sanction of pension and gratuity relating to the above named persons including himself. 4. The defendant filed counter before the Court below and raised objections stating that in the plaint, the plaintiff did not made any grievance against the defendant– management and after three years, he took a stand in the impugned application to summon the registers and files of the other employees and that those documents are no way helpful to him. 5. After perusing the records, the trial Court made the docket order, which is as follows: “Respondent not chosen to present and advance arguments. Perused the records. The objections of respondent are not tenable. Hence the respondent is directed to produce the petition schedule documents by 11-08-2010”. 6. Aggrieved by the above order, the defendant filed this revision. 7. Heard. 8. The suit is filed for recovery of difference in pension and other retirement benefits. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is a retired teacher of the defendant - school and he retired from service on attaining superannuation and he put in 30 years of service and the defendant-management fixed his pension and other retirement benefits wrongly and the entries were wrongly noted in the service book and therefore, in order to adjudicate the issue involved in the suit, the documents in question are necessary. 9. In view of the nature of the suit and in view of the fact that the defendant did not make any appearance to advance arguments in the above application, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the documents in question are essential for adjudication of the issue involved in the suit. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that the order of the Court below does not warrant any interference by this Court and hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J September 09, 2010. KTL