THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1209 OF 2014 Between: Vallapu Yakanna …Petitioner/Petitoner/Defendant And Majeti Purna Surya Rao …Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1209 OF 2014 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant.
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order in I.A.No.39 of 2014 in O.S.No.69 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Thorrur, Warangal District.
The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner/defendant. The trial of the suit was commended and the witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff were examined and a witness was also examined on behalf of the defendant. At that stage, the petitioner/defendant filed a petition under Order XVI Rule 6 of C.P.C., to issue summons to the respondent/plaintiff to produce pattedar pass book, ROR records and link documents relating to the suit property. The said petition was dismissed by the trial Court. Against the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
Earlier to the filing of the petition under Order XVI Rule 6 of C.P.C., the defendant issued a notice under Order XII Rule 8 of C.P.C., to the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff to produce the documents of pattedar pass book, ROR records and link documents. The counsel for the respondent/plaintiff gave a reply stating that the said documents were not available with him and they were submitted to the Tahsildar, Thorrur by the vendor of the respondent/plaintiff.
The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent/plaintiff colluded with his vendor and got filed the suit with a view to grab the schedule land by illegal means. According to the petitioner, the vendor of the respondent/plaintiff is not the real owner of the schedule land and he has no right or interest in the schedule land and that he sold the land to the plaintiff showing false, fabricated and concocted documents.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the Judgment reported in Ramrameshwari Devi
[1]
Vs. Nirmala Devi , wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:
“The Court should resort to discovery and production of documents and interrogatories at the earliest according to the object of the Act. If this exercise is carefully carried out, it would focus the controversies involved in the case and help the court in arriving at the truth of the matter and doing substantial justice”
The aforesaid Judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
When the respondent/plaintiff specifically stated in the reply to the notice issued to him under Order XII Rule 8 of C.P.C. that the aforesaid documents were not in his possession or that of his vendor, no useful purpose will be served by issuing notice to the respondent/plaintiff to produce the aforesaid documents.
The learned trial Court rightly held that the petitioner can obtain the certified copies of the documents from the revenue authorities and therefore, dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner has got other remedies to get the documents. In the instant case, the trial Court exercised the discretion in a proper way. The order passed by the trial Court being in accordance with law, it needs no interference in this revision.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 23-04-2014 Shr.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1209 OF 2014 Date: 23-04-2014 Shr
[1] (2011) 8 Supreme Court Cases 249