( 1 )

( 2 ) MR. Y. Venkaieswarlu, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit against the petitioner who is the defendant therein for a mere injunction claiming title over certain immovable property which is said to be a tin-shed premises, for which, the petitioner-defendant is also claiming title on the basis of a registered sale deed: but, the respondent-plaintiff challenges the validity of the said sale deed in favour of the petitioner-defendant on the ground that it is invalid in law. The Trial Court, on an application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order 16 Rule 6 C. P. C. has allowed the petition to summon admission register and T. C. from E. V. Reddy College, Kodad, which reflects the age of the petitioner as a minor on the dale of execution of the sale deed. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court has no authority to summon a document from the custody of third party, especially public office, without the respondent-plaintiff showing the relevancy of the particular document for adjudication of the rights of the parties in the suit.

( 3 ) ORDER 16 Rule 6 C. P. C. is to the following effect :"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.

( 4 ) IT must be remembered that the parlies to the suit are at liberty to adduce oral and documentary evidence, whatsoever according to their choice in order to substantiate their case. The question of relevancy or validity of documents, after they are tendered in evidence, shall be considered by the Court in accordance with law. Before a document is summoned from the custody of any office, the Court cannot embark upon a duty to scrutinise or consider the legality or relevancy of the same before it is actually tendered" in evidence and Order 16 Rule 6 C. P. C. does not mandate this to the Court. Order 16 Rule 6 C. P. C. is in simple language wherein it is slated that 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 affect of this Rule is that the Court has the authority to summon any person to be summoned to produce a document and if a document is produced or it is caused to be produced before the Court in compliance with such summons, it is due compliance of Order 16rule6 C. P. C.

( 5 ) THE rights of the parlies or adjudication on the issues between the parties to the suit will be decided on consideration of all the material which is placed before the Court and a party cannot be restrained to call for the documents, which it feels that the said documents are relevant and necessary to substantiate its case.

( 6 ) IN the above view of the matter, I do not see any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Trial Court. As such, this C. R. P. lacks merits.

( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, this C. R. P. is dismissed at the admission stage.