THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3258 of 2014 Dated: 26.09.2014 Between:
Ravish Tandon and another. .. Petitioners and Ravi Apartments Owners Welfare Association, Rep. by Sri Sambasiva Rao and others .. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. M. Surendar Rao For Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 02.06.2014 in I.A.No.389 of 2014 in O.P.No.358 of 2013 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under S.C.&S.T. (POA) Act, 1989-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
The petitioners filed O.P.No.358 of 2013 for the following substantive reliefs:
“(1) ….to declare that respondents No.2 to 8 are not the office bearers of Respondent No.1 and quash and set aside the alleged election dated 24-2-2013 of the Ravi Apartments Owners Welfare Association situated at Ravi Apartments, Plot No.24, Huda Complex, Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad;
(2) that the respondents No.2 to 8 may be restrained by way of Perpetual Injunction from claiming themselves to be the office bearers of respondent No.1 and consequently to make any demand and collect any amounts from the Petitioners, other owners or pass or implement any circulars, resolutions etc., for and on behalf of respondent No.1.”
In the said O.P., they have filed I.A.No.389 of 2014 under Order XVI Rule 6 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., for summoning the respondents and particularly respondent No.4, who is the alleged Secretary of respondent No.1, to produce the registers, records, statement of account in respect of income and expenditure of respondent No.1 association, supported by bills, vouchers and receipts for the period from 2003 till the date of filing of the same, the photocopies of the sale deeds under which 9 car parking areas and 36 scooter parking areas were sold by builders to the flat owners or any other documents to establish the above-mentioned fact and the sale deed or sale deeds of respondent No.4 to prove his entitlement to 5 car parking areas which are being used by him. This application has been dismissed by the lower Court. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed this civil revision petition.
I have heard Mr. M. Surendar Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, and perused the record.
A perusal of the order of the lower Court would show that it has dismissed the application mainly on the ground that respondent No.4 is not the owner of the properties in respect of which photocopies of sale deeds have been sought to be summoned by the petitioners. The lower Court has, however, failed to deal with the request of the petitioners for summoning the registers, records, statement of account in respect of income and expenditure of respondent No.1 association, bills, vouchers and receipts etc.
Be that as it may, the lower Court has failed to identify the crux of the issue, namely; whether the documents, which are sought to be summoned by the petitioners, have any relevance for determination of the O.P. The prayer in the O.P. has already been reproduced hereinabove. In my opinion, for adjudicating the O.P. qua the relief claimed therein, it is not necessary for the lower Court to summon any of the documents, which are sought by the petitioners. The lower Court ought to have dismissed the application on this ground.
For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in I.A.No.389 of 2014. Though the lower Court has dismissed the said application on an improper ground, I am not inclined to interfere with the result of the same.
The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.4458 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th September, 2014 IBL