ORDER :

1. Plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 11.07.2022 in I.A. No. 140 of 2022 in O.S. No. 12 of 2008 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Srungavarpukota.

2. Plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 12 of 2008 against the defendants seeking perpetual injunction. In support of case of plaintiff, he filed Exs.A-1 to A-6, which includes tax receipts dated 23.03.2004 and 02.11.2007. By virtue of orders in C.R.P. No. 5367 of 2018, PW-1 was recalled and Exs.A-7 to A-9 were marked. PWs. 1 to 3 were examined on behalf of plaintiff.

3. Plaintiff filed I.A. No. 140 of 2022 under Rule 129 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice to issue summons to the Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, S. Kota to cause production of house tax demand register of Gram Panchayat relating to Assessment No. 1622 and 1623 for the years 2008 to 2013.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended inter-alia that suit house originally belonged to Pasi Seetha; that during her lifetime, she executed a Will dated 15.05.2007 and she died on 13.08.2007; that after her death, the local authorities carried out mutation incorporating the name of plaintiff in the place of Pasi Seetha and he paid tax for the assessment Nos. 1622 and 1623; that on 18.06.2022 the suit was dismissed for default; that defendants taking advantage of dismissal of suit obtained mutation in his name for portion of plaint schedule property and hence, the present application is filed seeking to summon Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, S. Kota to cause production of house tax demand register of Gram Panchayat relating to Assessment No. 1622 and 1623 for the years 2008 to 2013 as they are necessary for just decision in the suit, as the change of mutation will not correctly reflect in the copies.

5. Counter was filed by respondents opposing the application. In the counter it was contended that it is the primary duty of the plaintiff to prove his case on the strength of his documents. The petitioner ought to have obtained public copies and choose to file the same as contemplated under law and thus, prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. By order dated 11.07.2022, the trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that suit is of the year 2008 and it is oldest matter on the file of that Court and summoning the Executive Officer will cause further delay in disposing of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

7. Heard Sri C. Upendra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Dasari SVVSV Prasad, learned counsel for respondents.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that no purpose would be served in getting certified copies as change of mutation will not correctly reflect in the copies. He also would submit that if the original is produced, it will be helpful to the court to appreciate the document in a proper perspective. Thus, prayed to set aside the order under revision.

9. Learned counsel for respondents supported the order of the trial Court.

10. It is apt to extract Rule 129 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice for better appreciation:

129. (76) Production of records in the custody of a Public Officer other than a court:

1. A summons for the production of records in the custody of the Public Officer other than a court shall be in Form No. 23 and shall be addressed to the Head of the office concerned and in the case of a summons to a District Registrar or a Sub-Registrar of Assurances, it shall be addressed to the Registrar or Sub- Registrar in whose office, or sub-office, as the case may be, the required records are kept. Provided that, where the summons is for the production of village accounts, including filed measurement books, such summons shall be addressed to the Tahsildar or the Deputy Tahsildar in independent charge as the case may be. Provided, further that when the summons is for production of records in the custody of high dignitaries like the Speaker of the Lok-Sabha or State Legislative Council etc., the summo