APHC010072272026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Tuesday, the Seventh day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 478 Between: Imthiyaz Ahammad and R. Sreenivasa Chowdary and others Counsel for the petitioner: 1. G. Raj Kumar Counsel for the respondents: 1. P. V. Mahesh The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the Seventh day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 478 of 2026 R. Sreenivasa Chowdary and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Counsel for the respondents: The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi ...Petitioner ...Respondents 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.478 of 2026 ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 08.01.2026, dismissing the petition in I.A.No.1474 of 2025 in O.S.No.43 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu filed by the defendant No.1 under Order XVI, Rule 6 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to direct the Registrar of Companies, Vijayawada (Ministry of Corporate Affairs) to send the true copies of the following documents: for the period specified between 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2016. Sl. No. Document 1. Form DIR-12 / old Form 32 showing appointment and cessation of Directors, particularly cessation of Mr. R. Vaninath Reddy (DIN 02255332). 2. Annual Returns (Form MGT-7 or Form 20B) for F.Ys. 2012-13 to 2015-16. 3. Balance sheet and profit and loss filings (Form AOC-4 / Form 23 AC-23ACA) for the same period. 4. Form MGT-14 (if any) evidencing Board or shareholder resolutions authorising borrowings. 5. Return of allotment (Form PAS-3) and share transfer forms (SH-4/SH-7) filed during 2012-16. 6. Index of charges and any Form CHG-1 / CHG-4 filed. 7. Form INC-22 (if any) evidencing change of registered office. 8. Certified signatory details report showing authorized signatories as on 31st March, 2015 9. Certified Index of filings / search report covering 2011-16 2. The revision petitioner is the petitioner / the defendant No.1. The respondent No.1 is the respondent No.1 / the plaintiff. The respondent No.2 is the respondent No.2 / the defendant No.2. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants Nos.1 and 2 for recovery of Rs.60,11,950/- basing on two promissory notes both dated 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.478 of 2026 11.03.2015, for total amount of Rs.40,00,000/-, allegedly executed by the defendant No.2. 4. The suit was opposed by the defendant No.1 by filing written statement denying the suit transactions and further stating that the plaintiff and this defendant are alien to each other; that the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 are not any partners nor are they doing any business together; that the defendant No.2 absconded from Ananthapuramu town and has not been seen for four years; that the defendant No.1 has no knowledge of the whereabouts of the defendant No.2; that on 31.01.2015, the defendant No.2 transferred all his shares and retired from the company Renati Automotives Private Limited and thereby, he is no way concerned with the company or functioning or business transactions of the company either directly or indirectly; that the suit promissory notes were fabricated and brought into existence with the aid of the scribe and the witnesses and mala fide intention to cause humiliation to this defendant to gain money under false pretexts; and that the plaintiff had no such capacity to lend huge unaccounted amounts and moreover there was no need to borrow the amount in the suit promissory notes. 5. The petitioner stated that the alleged suit promissory notes dated 11.03.2021 said to have been executed by the respondent No.2 / the defendant No.2 showing him as the Managing Partner of the Renati Automotives Private Limited and therefore, the dispute entirely resolves around that date, since the defendant No.2 had ceased to be a director well before the date of the suit promissory notes. Therefore, the petitioner stated that the documents mentioned in the above list are material for the purpose of adjudication of the suit on merits. 6. The petition was opposed by filing counter of the respondent No.1 / plaintiff stating that the application is not maintainable as there 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.478 of 2026 are no pleadings or issue on the aspects raised by the petitioner / defendant No.1; that the petitioner can obtain certified copies and that the averments in the petition are false and have no merit. 7. The respondent No.2 / the defendant No.2 remained ex parte. 8. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner / defendant No.1 contended that the documents brought down cessation of ended directorship of the defendant No.2, whereas the written statement of the petitioner stated that on 31.01.2015, the defendant No.2 transferred all his shares and retired from the company and he was no way concerned with the company or its business in any manner from the date of his retirement and further in the additional written statement, the petitioner averred that the plaintiff is alien to the petitioner and that the defendant No.2 has been absconding, under the circumstances there are no valid reasons to call for these documents in the absence of corresponding pleadings which need to be proved with the other documents. 9. Aggrieved by the order this revision petition was filed. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the above documents are material to establish the defence, but the trial Court failed to appreciate the necessity and dismissed the petition. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioner had not stated any reason to call for these records with reference to the pleadings and therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition with the observations that the evidence cannot be produced without there being corresponding pleadings. 12. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention Order XVI, Rule 6 C.P.C. and the same is excerpted hereunder: 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.478 of 2026 “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.” The provision by itself does not make it mandatory to adopt any procedure before seeking the relief under this rule when a public officer is summoned to produce document. However, Rule 129 of the A.P. Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1980, mandates certain procedure for seeking the relief of summoning public officer to produce records from his custody. 13. Rule 129 of the A.P. Civil Rules Practice, 1980 read as under:- “Rule 129. Production of records in the custody of a Public Officer other than a court:- A summons for the production of records in the custody of a Public Officer other than a court shall be in Form No. 23 and shall be addressed to the Head of the office concerned and in the case of a summons to a District Registrar or a Sub- Registrar of Assurances, it shall be addressed to the Registrar or Sub-Registrar in whose office, or sub-office, as the case may be, the required records are kept. Provided that, where the summons is for the production of village accounts, including field measurement books, such summons shall be addressed to the Tahsildar or 6 BSB, J C.R.P.No.478 of 2026 the Deputy Tahsildar in independent charge as the case may be. Provided further that when the summons is for production of records in the custody of high dignitaries like the Speaker of the Lok-Sabha or State Legislative Council etc., the summons shall be in the form of a letter of request in form No. 23-A. (2) Every application for such summons shall made by an affidavit setting out (1) the document or documents the production of which is required; (2) the relevancy of the document or documents; and (3) in cases where the production of a certified copy would answer the purpose, whether application was made to the proper officer for a certified copy or copies and the result of such application. (3) No court shall issue such summons unless it considers the production of the original necessary or is satisfied that the application for a certified copy has been duly made and has not been granted. The court shall in every case record its reasons in writing and shall require the applicant to deposit in court, before the summons is issued, to abide by the order of the court, such sum as it may consider necessary to meet the estimated cost of making a copy of the document when produced. (4) On production of the document in obedience to the summons, the Court, unless it thinks it necessary to retain the original, shall direct a copy to be made at the expense of the applicant, and shall with all convenient speed return the original retaining the copy. 7 BSB, J C.R.P.No.478 of 2026 (5) Unless the court requires the production of the original, every such summons to a public officer shall state that he is at liberty to produce, instead of the original, a copy certified in the manner prescribed by Section 76 of the Evidence Act. (6) Nothing in the above rules shall prevent a court of its own motion from issuing a summons for the production of public records or other documents in the custody of a Public Officer in accordance with sub-rule (1), if it thinks it necessary for the ends of justice to do so. The court shall, in every case, record its reasons in writing.” 14. The mandatory nature of requirement under Rule 129(2) of the Civil Rules of Practice, 1980 has been well considered by this Court in the cases previously decided. (i) In Oguruboina Prasad Vs. Kunam Srinivasulu1, it was held at paragraphs Nos.11 & 12 as follows: “11. Undoubtedly, APSPCDL is a public authority. As per Rule 129 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice, no Court shall issue summons unless it considers the production of the original necessary or is satisfied that the application for a certified copy has been duly made and has not been granted. The affidavit filed in support of the petition does not disclose regarding the revision petitioners making application to the authority to get the particulars. However, ground was raised in the grounds of appeal stating that there is no 1 2022 SCC OnLine AP 2536 8 BSB, J C.R.P.No.478 of 2026 possibility of getting certified copy of documents. Without making any effort to get the certified copy, interlocutory application is filed. It is for the defendant to get the certified copy by furnishing the information. Thus without making any effort, no Court shall issue summons, unless production of such document is necessary. 12. The order of the lower Court is neither perverse nor amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested with it. Hence, the order of the trial Court dismissing the petition does not call for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.” (ii) In D. Ram Mohan Rao Vs. M/s. Sridevi Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Managing Director Sri Mohan Reddy and others2, it was held at paragraphs Nos.18, 19 and 21 as follows: “18. As per Sub-rule (2) of Rule 129 of Civil Rules of Practice, every application for such summons shall be made by an affidavit setting out the document the production of which is required, the relevancy of such document and in cases where the production of a certified copy would answer the purpose, whether such application was made to the proper officer and the result of such application. That apart, Sub-rule (3) also makes it clear that before issuing the summons the Court shall be satisfied that the production of such original document is necessary and shall record its reasons in writing. In the alternative, it has to be established to the satisfaction of the Court that the application for a certified copy has been 2 2005 (6) ALT 712 9 BSB, J C.R.P.No.478 of 2026 duly made and has not been granted. The said requirements are also clear from the language of Form No. 23 in which the summons have to be issued by the Court under Sub-rule (1) for production of the records in the custody of a Public Officer. 19. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the defendant failed to take any steps for obtaining the certified copies of the documents in question from the concerned officer. As a matter of fact, his affidavit was totally silent on the said aspect. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not possible for a third party to obtain the certified copies of the Income Tax Returns of a particular assessee, I am unable to accept since unless such an application is made and rejected, it cannot be assumed that it is impossible to obtain the certified copies. 21. For the aforesaid reasons, I am unable to hold that the Court below has committed any error in rejecting the application in question. The impugned order cannot be said to be vitiated on account of any patent error of fact or law, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.” The above decisions have been followed in M/s. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited Vs. Musunuru Appa Rao and others3. 15. There is no whisper by the petitioner that he has ever tried to secure the certified copies of the documents sought to be produced. 3 C.R.P.No.3112 of 2023, dated 02.04.2024 10 BSB, J C.R.P.No.478 of 2026 Therefore, in the absence of due compliance of Rule 129(2) of the Civil Rules of Practice, the relief cannot be granted. 16. Merely because the relief is not granted on this application, the party is not disentitled to adduce the same evidence in any manner permitted under law. 17. However, it is to be mentioned that the observation of the trial Court that the above documents have no corresponding pleadings which need to be proved with this documents is incorrect. It is the defence of the defendant No.1 that the defendant No.2 resigned from the directorship before the date of the suit promissory note which are said to be executed by the defendant No.2. Since the main issue is whether the defendant No.2 executed the suit promissory note, the role of the defendant No.2 as on the date of the suit promissory note is relevant. Also evidence necessary to establish the same are relevant and necessary. Therefore, it is open for the petitioner to adduce such evidence as per law. 18. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to adduce such evidence as per law. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J 07.04.2026 NSM / RAR