THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5827 of 2012 Date: 10-07-2014 Between :- Vukkalam Prakash.
… Petitioner.
And Jwalapuram Sreenivasacharyulu.
… Respondent.
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.Srinivas Counsel for respondent : --
This Court made the following :-
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5827 of 2012 ORDER:
This Revision is filed challenging the order dt.02-11- 2012 in I.A.No.735 of 2012 in O.S.No.225 of 2009 of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur.
2. The petitioner herein is plaintiff in the suit. He filed the suit for declaration of his title and for perpetual injunction against the respondent. He contended that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to Kallamadi Lakshmamma @ Guggilla Lakshmamma, w/o.Obireddy of Rachanapalli village; that she sold it in favour of late Gondhi Pullaiah, s/o.Subbaiah of Anantapur under registered sale deed being Doc.No.425/67 and that subsequently, the said Gondhi Pullaiah had executed a registered gift deed dt.02-02-1972 in his favour.
3. Written statement was filed disputing the same. Issues were framed and trial commenced. The petitioner was examined as P.W.1.
4. He filed I.A.No.629 of 2012 to send for certain records from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Anantapur. In that application, he stated that he was under the bonafide impression that original of the gift deed was lost, that it was produced before the Authority under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 in C.C.No.2359 of 1972, but on verification he came to know that only registration copy of the gift deed was produced but not the original. I.A.No.629 of 2012 was allowed and a person deputed by the Sub-Registrar, Anantapur produced the records and was examined on 03-12-2012. The Administrative Officer of the Revenue Divisional Officer’s Office, Anantapur, however, claimed that he did not have knowledge of the file relating to C.C.No.2271 of 1975 of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Anantapur.
5. In that view of the matter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.735 of 2012 to summon the Authorized Officer (Land Reforms Section), Collector Office to produce the file pertaining to C.C.Nos.2271 of 1975 and 1744/75/ATP filed by late Gondi Pulliah and his wife late Gondi Rama Laxmamma.
6. This application was opposed by respondent on the ground that it is vague and is an abuse of process of the Court.
7. By order dt.02-11-2012, the Court below dismissed the said application. It held that if the original of the gift deed was filed before the authority under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, there is no necessity to summon the file from the Authorized Officer, Land Reforms Section, Collector Office since the petitioner had filed certified copy of the gift deed in the suit. It held that he can approach the concerned official and get whatever documents he wants and no summons need be issued to said official to produce the said record.
8. Challenging the same, this Revision is filed.
9. The learned counsel for petitioner contends that the order of the Court below is erroneous and production of the record relating to C.C.Nos.2271/1975 and 1744/75/ATP filed by late Gondi Pullaiah and late Gondi Ramalakshmamma is necessary in order to prove the case of petitioner.
10. The petitioner has filed the order dt.31-01- 1986 in C.C.Nos.2271/75 and 1744/75 ATP of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Anantapur. A reading of the said order shows that only certified copy of the gift deed in his favour was filed in the Land Reforms proceedings. Original of the gift deed was not filed. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by summoning the Authorized Officer (Land Reforms), Collector Office to produce the files in C.C.Nos.2271/75 and 1744/75 ATP particularly when the petitioner has any way filed the certified copy of the gift deed executed in his favour by late Gondi Pullaiah. The Court below has rightly rejected I.A.No.735 of 2012 observing that petitioner can approach the concerned official and obtain whatever document he wants from him.
11. The Revision Petition is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed at the state of admission. No costs.
12. Miscellaneous applications pending if any, in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 10-07-2014 vsv