1. This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 22.09.2014 in I.A. No. 59 of 2013 in O.S. No. 3 of 2007 of the Judge, Family Court - cum - IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

2. The petitioners herein are defendants in the suit.

3. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 filed the above suit for declaration of their title and for cancellation of a judgment in O.S. No. 9 of 1992 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad, for a perpetual injunction and for costs.

4. The petitioners filed a written statement opposing the suit claim.

5. Issues were framed. Trial commenced and the evidence on the side of plaintiff was closed. The suit was coming up for evidence of petitioners, and DW.1 was also examined and he marked certain documents.

6. At that stage, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 59 of 2013 through their counsel contending that a certificate dated 22.08.1970 in File No. B-5/235/68 issued under Section 50-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, the Act) (filed in O.S. No. 9 of 1992 before the Senior Civil Judge, Luxettipet), pertaining to the suit land bearing Survey No. 367 of Ponkal Village of Mandal Jannaram, Adilabad District), be summoned from the said court. They alleged that the Revenue officials have not given them certified copy thereof on the ground that the files available with them did not contain the said certificate, and even though they filed an application in O.S. No. 9 of 1992 for return of the said document, no order has been passed thereon, and the said application has been kept pending. They contended that since the said document is available in the custody of the Senior Civil Judge, Luxettipet, in exercise of the power under Order 13 Rule 10 C.P.C. the court below can summon the said document from the custody of the said court. It was further stated that, if for any reason the affidavit of party is necessary, the same will be filed after getting the same signed and attested by the concerned defendants and till then, the affidavit of the counsel for defendants/petitioners might be taken into consideration. It was also stated that the suit O.S. No. 9 of 1992 has since been transferred to the Additional Senior Civil Judge, (F.T.C.) at Luxettipet.

7. This application was opposed by respondents who contended that no material is placed before the Court below that the Revenue officials had refused to issue such certificate, and there is no evidence filed to show that any application was moved by petitioners before the court where O.S. No. 9 of 1992 was pending for return of the said document. They also contended that the certificate in question is a concocted document, and that the application is filed only with an intention to drag on the suit.

8. By order dated 22.09.2014, the Court below rejected the said application. It held that petitioners had failed to mention the interlocutory application number in which they sought to take return of the said document from the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Luxettipet and no document is filed to show that they even filed an application for return of the said document before the said Court, or that the Revenue Divisional Officer refused to issue certified copy thereof. It was further observed that the said document sought for to be summoned from record in O.S. No. 9 of 1992 is only an unmarked document and no court would raise an objection to return it to the parties.

9. Challenging the same, the present Revision is filed.

10. The counsel for petitioner contended that under Order 13 Rule 10 C.P.C. the Court may either suo moto or on an application by any of the parties to the suit, send for records from any other court and inspect the same; and the petitioner had also filed an affidavit indicating the efforts made by him to get the certified copy of the Section 50-B certificate from the Tahsildar and also from the Court where O.S. No. 9 of 1992 is pending; and th