APHC010163952021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 587/2021 Between: Soma Narayanamurthy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Goriparthi Srinivasa Rao ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. YALLABANDI RAMATIRTHA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. S PRANATHI The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.587 of 2021 ORDER: 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order dated 20.10.2020 in I.A.No.843 of 2019 in O.S.No.192 of 2014 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 2. The Petitioners are the Defendants and the Respondent is the Plaintiff in the suit. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The suit was filed for grant of permanent injunction with regard to the suit schedule property. After the evidence of the Defendants, an application was filed by the Petitioners under Order 16 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code to issue summons to the Tahsildar, Tadepalligudem to produce revenue records i.e. F.L.R and other revenue records pertaining to the suit schedule property in R.S.No.412/1 and 412/2 of Kunchinapalli Village. The reason for filing the application was that the suit schedule property is part of Inam village and as per Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, the immovable properties are not transferable and the Tahsildar, Tadepalligudem is a relevant witness to prove his contention on the said fact. This application was opposed by the Respondent/Plaintiff. The trial Court by referring to Rule 129 of Civil Rules of Practice, which prescribed the procedure for summoning the Public Officer, rejected the application. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3 4. Heard Sri Yallabandi Ramathirtha, learned counsel for the Petitioners and M/s S.Pranathi, learned counsel for the Respondent. 5. The counsel for the Petitioners contended that the F.L.R is a relevant document for the proper adjudication of the case and in that context the Tahsildar, Tadepalligudem, being a concerned officer to speak about the contents of the F.L.R, contended that the trial Court should have allowed the I.A rather than dismissing the same. 6. The counsel for the Respondent supported the order of the trial Court and contended that the application is filed at the stage of arguments and that there are no merits in the application and that the present application is filed only with an intention to procrastinate the suit proceedings. The e-Courts proceedings were also passed to the Court to substantiate his plea that the suit was reserved for Judgment in the year 2024 and that it is now posted for hearing in February, 2025. 7. Be that as it may, the trial Court at Paragraph 17 of the impugned order had referred to the Judgment of this Court in Vooda Venkatarao and others v. Vooda Surya Ramu and others1 wherein the procedure to be followed for summoning the Public Officer after referring to Rule 129 of the Civil Rules of Practice was considered. 8. The trial Court after referring to the Judgment of this Court observed that the Affidavit of the Petitioner does not disclose whether the Petitioner has applied for certified copies and when they were rejected by the Tahsildar, Tadepalligudem and in the absence of compliance under Section 129 of Civil Rules of Practice, the trial 1 2016 (6) ALD 59 4 Court rejected the application. The reasoning of the trial Court cannot be found fault with, as some attempt should be made by the Petitioners for procuring the documents. Only, in the event of inability to procure the documents in spite of making application for the same under Rule 129 of Civil Rules of Practice or under Right to Information Act, 2005, the Public Officers can be summoned to Court. 9. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the trial Court. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 06.02.2025 IS 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.587 of 2021 Date: 06.02.2025 IS