1 VS,J C.R.P.No.2890 of 2023 APHC010564932023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2890/2023 Between: 1. V NARAYANA RAJU, S/O V. ADINARAYANA. RAJU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, HINDU, EMPLOYEE, R/O SAP CAMP, KURNOOL ...PETITIONER AND 1. SMT SAJJA VEERAMMA, W/O LATE S. SHESAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, HINDU. OCC. HOUSE HOLD, R/O. H.NO. 2-307/1, MAIN ROAD, VENKATAGIRI (V) AND (M) NELLORE DISTRICT 2. SAJJA RANGA SUBBA RAYUDU, S/O. LATE S. SHEAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS HINDU, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO. 7-61, ANJANEYA SWAMY GUDI, BANGARPET, VENKATAGIRI (V) AND (M), NELLORE DISTRICT 3. SMT THUPATI SUJATHA, W/O CHENCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSE HOLD, R/O H.NO. 3-103, BANGARPETA, VENKATAGIRI (V) AND (M) NELLORE DISTRICT 4. D P SIVA RAMA KRISHNA, S/O. D.P. KURPA NARAYANAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, HINDU, R/O H.NO. 46-1-VBD-1, VASAVI GARDENS, JOHARAPURAM ROAD KURNOOL. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to allow the present civil revision petition by setting aside 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.2890 of 2023 the Order dated 12.10.2023 passed in I.A. No. 357 of 2023 in O.S. No. 655 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool and consequently direct the persons mentioned in the schedule to the I.A No. 357 of 2023 in O.S. No. 655 of 2014 to produce the schedule shown documents containing signature of Late S. Seshaiah. ARSI 349. and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased be pleased to stay the further proceedings in O.S. No. 655 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM 2. P RAJASEKHAR 3. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.2890 of 2023 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff challenging the order dated 12.10.2023 passed in I.A.No.357 of 2023 in O.S.No.655 of 2014 on the file of Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, whereby the trial Court dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XVI Rule 6 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking direction to the concerned to produce documents mentioned in the accompanying schedule. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: (a) The petitioner/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool seeking specific performance of agreement of sale (Ex.A2) executed by late Seshaiah who is the husband and father of respondent Nos.1 and 2/defendant Nos.1 and 2. Late S. Seshaiah worked as ARSI 349 at Second Andhra Pradesh Special Police Battalion, Kurnool. The respondent No.2/defendant No.2 took a plea that the signature in Ex.A2 does not belong to his father. As there were no witnesses at the time of execution of Ex.A2, the petitioner/plaintiff, to validate the signature of late S. Seshaiah on Ex.A2, filed I.A.No.500 of 2022 seeking a direction to the concerned to produce pay-bill register from the office of Administrative Officer, APSP Battalion II, Kurnool pertaining to the years 1994 to 1995 which contains the signatures of late S. Seshaiah, so that the same could be sent to 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.2890 of 2023 handwriting expert for comparison of signatures with that of the signature in Ex.A2 – agreement of sale. (b) The said application was allowed by the trial Court and the Administrative Officer, APSP Battalion II, appeared before the Court below and was examined as P.W.3; during the course of adducing evidence, P.W.3 stated that the pay-bill registers pertaining to the years 1994, 1995 and 1996 containing the signatures of late S. Seshaiah are not available in their office. During the course of examination of P.W.3, the petitioner learnt that the office of P.W.3 possesses pension proposal form, self-declaration of family members and other particulars that contains signature of late S. Seshaiah and also the service register of late S. Seshaiah. As such, the petitioner filed I.A.No.357 of 2023 under Order XVI Rule 6 and Section 151 of CPC seeking a direction to the concerned to produce said documents of late S. Seshaiah. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court on 12.10.2023 on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff filed the said application after a lapse of nine years from the date of filing of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is preferred. 3. When the petition came up for admission on 08.11.2023 this Court has granted interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.655 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. 4. Heard Mr. Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Mr. P. 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.2890 of 2023 Rajasekhar, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the entire material available on record. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.655 of 2014 on the file of Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool against the respondents herein seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 29.11.1991 (Ex.A2) and to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to execute a registered sale deed in favour of petitioner pertaining to the plaint schedule house site. In the said suit, the respondents/defendants contended that the signature on Ex.A2 does not belong to late S. Seshaiah, as such, the petitioner was initially constrained to file I.A.No.500 of 2022 seeking a direction to the concerned to produce pay-bill register from the office of Administrative Officer, APSP Battalion II, Kurnool pertaining to 1994 to 1995 that contains the signatures of late S. Seshaiah which was allowed by the trial Court; however, the Administrative Officer, APSP Battalion II, Kurnool appeared before the trial Court and submitted that the records sought by the petitioner are not available. As the petitioner came to know that the office of Administrative Officer, APSP Battalion II, Kurnool is in possession of certain documents i.e. pension proposal form, self-declaration of family members and other particulars that contains signature of late S. Seshaiah, in order to summon the said documents, the petitioner filed I.A.No.357 of 2023 in O.S.No.655 of 2014 under Order XVI Rule 6 and Section 151 of CPC. For better appreciation of the case, Order XVI Rule 6 of CPC is extracted hereunder: 6 VS,J C.R.P.No.2890 of 2023 ―6. Summons to produce document.—Any person may be summoned to produce a document, without being summoned to give evidence; and any person summoned merely to produce a document shall be deemed to have complied with the summons if he causes such document to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.‖ 6. It can be understood from the above that when any person is summoned for producing any document, he can merely produce the required document without adducing any evidence. In the case on hand, the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that, the petitioner has already taken steps by filing I.A.No.500 of 2022 to obtain the documents relating to late S. Seshaiah, wherein his signatures are available, but failed to substantiate his claim. As such, the Court felt that there is no need to summon the documents sought as prayed by him. 7. Admittedly, the main intention of the petitioner in filing the petition is to secure a document relating to late S. Seshaiah which would enable him to compare the signature of late S. Seshaiah on the agreement of sale (Ex.A2) with that of the document produced by the Administrative Officer, APSP Battalion II, Kurnool. In order to substantiate his claim that the signature present on the agreement of sale belongs to late S. Seshaiah, the petitioner had earlier filed I.A.No.500 of 2022, but, due to non-availability of records sought by the petitioner, they could not be produced. But, the petitioner learnt that certain documents relating to late S. Seshaiah i.e. pension proposal form, self-declaration of family members and other particulars that contains his signature, are available in the office of Administrative Officer, APSP Battalion 7 VS,J C.R.P.No.2890 of 2023 II, Kurnool. As such, the petitioner, having no other alternative, filed the present application for summoning the aforesaid documents relating to late S. Seshaiah containing his signatures. If such documents are essential for the petitioner to substantiate his case, ordinarily the same should not be refused. 8. The documents sought to be produced by the petitioner are necessary to prove his case and in its absence, the very purpose of filing the suit would be defeated. It cannot be stated that the petitioner filed the said application in a belated stage i.e. after nine years from the filing of the suit, as he had been taking steps from time to time to substantiate his case. Further, if at all the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner are taken on record, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents and it in fact would assist the Court below to adjudicate the issue expeditiously. Therefore, the revision petition deserves to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed and the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool in I.A.No.357 of 2023 in O.S.No.655 of 2014 is hereby set-aside. Further, the Court below is directed to summon Pension Clerk, APSP II Battalion, Kurnool to produce pension proposal form, self-declaration of family members and other particulars containing signature of late S. Seshaiah, ARSI 349 and the concerned Superintendent, Section-A, APSP II Battalion, Kurnool to produce service register of late Seshaiah. Further, as the suit pertains to the year 8 VS,J C.R.P.No.2890 of 2023 2014, the trial Court shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one (1) year. 10. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:31.10.2025 Gss