THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3299 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated 25-11-2008, made in I.A.No.1374 of 2008 in O.S.No.66 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants. The petitioners herein filed the suit in O.S.No.66 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, seeking partition of the suit schedule property and to establish their claim that the suit schedule property is a joint family property, they wanted certain bank documents and accordingly, the 3rd plaintiff filed I.A.No.995 of 2008 for summoning the Manager, State Bank of India, which was allowed on 04-08-2008 and the Bank Manager was summoned and he was examined on behalf of the plaintiffs on 16- 10-2008. It is stated that the plaintiffs wanted destruction register, but the Bank Manager stated that the destruction register is available in the Bank. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1374 of 2008 for causing production of the original destruction register. The trial court vide its order, dated 25-11-2008 dismissed the said I.A. Aggrieved by the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed. No doubt, the trial court erroneously observed that the documents sought by the plaintiffs are not helpful for disposal of the case. I am of the opinion that without destruction register, it cannot be said that the said documents are not helpful for disposal of the case to decide whether the said destruction register is relevant in any manner to prove that the suit schedule property was acquired by the funds of the joint family property. But, however, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have not made any attempt to get the certified copy of the destruction register from the Bank and no application was filed before the Bank and in their application also, they have not stated anything about applying for certified copy of the destruction register and if the certified copy of the destruction register is not furnished by the Bank, it is open to the petitioners to cause production of the said destruction register. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. But, however, the petitioners are at liberty to obtain certified copy of the destruction register from the Bank and if the Bank fails to provide certified copy of destruction register, it is open to the petitioners to file fresh application to cause production of the destruction register from the Bank. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 28-08-2009 Prv