THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5030 of 2010 ORDER: The respondents filed O.S.No.34 of 2007 in the Court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool against the petitioners for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The trial of the suit commenced and the respondents have adduced their evidence. The petitioners started adducing their evidence and D.Ws.1 and 2 were cross-examined on 30.06.2010. At that stage, the petitioners filed I.A.No.544 of 2010 under Order 16 Rule 5 read with Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer to issue summons to Tahsildar, Kurnool Mandal; V.R.O., Rudravaram Village and Wahab; Mandal Surveyor, Kurnool Mandal as well as to summon certain documents mentioned in the schedule to the I.A. It was urged that the adangal, pattadar pass book and title deed marked as Exs.A11 to A13 in the suit were the result of manipulation and that summoning of the said witnesses is necessary. The application was opposed by the respondents. They pleaded that when Exs.A11 to A13 were marked, nothing was suggested to the contrary in the course of oral evidence or through the witness concerned and the present I.A. is filed only with a view to drag the proceedings. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 08.09.2010. Hence, this revision. Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though Exs.A11 to A13 are public documents, an explanation is needed from the authorities, who issued them, in view of the circumstances mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. He contends that summoning of witnesses and documents, as prayed for in the I.A., would be helpful to the Court in arriving at just and proper conclusion. The petitioners wanted three revenue officials to be summoned as witnesses and production of the entire record pertaining to the suit schedule property and Exs.A11 to A13. The way, description of the documents is as vague as it could be. The effort of the petitioners appears to be to prove that Exs.A11 to A13 are not genuine and legal. In case the petitioners doubted the genuinity or correctness of Exs.A11 to A13, the first and the foremost step to be taken by them was to make suggestion to the witness by whom those documents were filed. No such effort was made. Had the petitioners doubted the genuinity of those documents when the evidence on behalf of the respondents was in progress, there would have been possibility for them to overcome any suggestion that may have been made by the petitioners. Having permitted the closure of evidence on behalf of the respondents, the petitioners have come forward with the present application. Firstly, the petitioners did not lay foundation for attacking the genuinity of the documents referred to above. Secondly, if they want to prove their allegation, they can simply approach the authority concerned and obtain certified copies. Further, in case the documents suffer from any illegality, the petitioners are entitled to pursue their remedies under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The trial Court has furnished cogent reasons for dismissing the application and this Court is not inclined to take a different view. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 12.11.2010. kdl