The court emphasized that compliance with trial court orders is critical, and discretionary powers under procedural rules must be exercised judiciously, regardless of case age.

Order :

NINALA JAYASURYA, J.

These two revision petitions are filed against the common order dated 05.08.2025 of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram in I.A.Nos.585 of 2025 and 586 of 2025 in O.S.No.16 of 2015.

2. The petitioners / plaintiffs in the said suit filed I.A.No.585 of 2025 under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) seeking to reopen I.A.No.392 of 2025 for fulfilling the orders of the Court. They filed I.A.No.586 of 2025 under Order 16 Rule 10 (3) and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for issuance of arrest warrant either with or without bail to the Tahsildar, Thondangi Mandal for non-compliance of the order dated 28.04.2025.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners / plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the respondents / defendants.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that initially, the respondents herein filed I.A.No.215 of 2025 under Order XVI Rule 6 r/w Section 151 of CPC to issue summons to the Tahsildar, Thondangi Mandal to produce the records of rights i.e., 1-B, ROR to establish the fact that the plaint schedule property is not situated in Tammayyapeta Village and after considering the submissions on both sides, the said I.A., was allowed by an Order dated 10.03.2025 and summons were issued to the Tahsildar, Thondangi for causing production of the revenue records pertaining to Survey Nos.373 B/3, 376 B/1, 376 B/2 and 384 B/1 and all revenue records pertaining to the survey numbers 373, 376 and 384 i.e., Settlement Register, 10(1) account and ROR Register on payment of process. He submits that subsequently, the petitioners / plaintiffs filed I.A.No.392 of 2025 under Order XVI Rule 7 and 14 r/w Section 151 of CPC to summon the Tahsildar, Thondangi Mandal for production of original records i.e., Record of Rights (ROR), Original Adangal Book, Original Settlement Register and Field Measurement Book (FMB) pertaining to Survey Nos.373, 376, 378 and 384 of Bendapudi Village and to give evidence as Court witness. He submits that on contest, the said I.A., was allowed by an Order dated 28.04.2025 and summons were issued to the Tahsildar, Thondangi for production of ROR Register, Original Settlement Register and FMB pertaining to Survey Nos.373, 376, 378 and 384 of Bendapudi Village and to give evidence on payment of process. He submits that the Tahsildar, Thondangi intentionally dragged on the matter without complying with the said orders and did not attend before the Court nor has offered any explanation for his non-appearance.

5. The learned counsel further submits that as the Tahsildhar was continuously not attending the proceedings, the petition was closed and in those circumstances, the petitioners filed the above referred I.As., i.e., 585 and 586 of 2025 seeking 1) to reopen the I.A.No.392 of 2025 for fulfilling / complying with the orders of the Court and 2) to issue warrant of arrest either with or without bail to the Tahsildhar, Thondangi Mandal for non-compliance of the order of the Court dated 28.04.2025 in I.A.No.392 of 2025 as contemplated under Order XVI Rule 10 (3) and Section 151 of CPC. He submits that the learned Civil Judge without considering the matter in the correct perspective, went wrong in dismissing both the I.As. Learned counsel submits that the said Tahsildhar wantonly withheld the material records and did not produce the documents as per the earlier orders passed in I.A.No.392 of 2025, that he also failed to attend the Court proceedings and no reasons are forthcoming for his non-appearance before th