ORDER :

The Civil Revision is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.284 of 2012 dated 11.03.2020 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Munsif, Valliyoor, dismissing the petition filed under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC.

2. The revision petitioner is the 3rd defendant and the respondents 3 and 4/plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.284 of 2012 against the revision petitioner, the respondents 1 and 2 herein and one Anthoniammal claiming the reliefs of declaration that the items 1 and 2 of the suit properties are owned by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 respectively and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants and their agents and men from any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and to declare that the settlement deed dated 04.08.2011 executed by the first defendant infavour of the second defendant and the sale deed dated 24.08.2011 executed by the third defendant as power agent of the second defendant infavour of the fourth defendant are legally invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs.

3. When the suit was pending for the defendants side further evidence, the above petition in I.A.No.1 of 2020 came to be filed under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC., directing the Tashildar of Radhapuram to produce the records and adduce evidence and the learned District Munsif, after enquiry, has dismissed the said petition vide order dated 11.03.2020. Though the said application was filed by the defendants 2 to 4, the third defendant alone has filed the present revision petition, challenging the said order.

4. The revision Petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the said petition in I.A.No.1 of 2020, has stated that the suit was posted for the defendants side evidence, that the Radhapuram Thasildhar is to be directed to produce the documents relating to the suit property and to adduce evidence and that therefore summons are to be issued for the same. The plaintiffs have filed a counter memo stating that the petitioners have not shown the list of documents sought to be produced and as to how the evidence of Radhapuram Thasildhar is necessary and relevant for the purpose of the case. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the petitioners have neither mentioned the list of documents required to be produced by the Radhapuram Thasildhar and the purpose for which Thasildhar is to be examined. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the petitioner has annexed the summons along with the application and in the summons, he has mentioned the nature of documents required to be produced.

5. In the summons attached with the petition, it is stated that Jamabanthi Settlement for S.Nos.922/2 and 922/4 of Perungudi Village, Vadakankulam, Resurvey Patta for S.No.922 of 2 and Separate Patta stands in the name of Michael Senduraiyan are to be produced. As rightly pointed out by the respondent side, no one has whispered about the said particulars either in the affidavit or in the petition. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent generally, the issuance of summons will be considered only after allowing of the petition.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has not followed the procedures contemplated under Rules 75 of Civil Rules of Practice, which deals with production of records in the custody of the public officer.

7. Rule 75(1) of Cr.P.C contemplates that the summons for the production of records in the custody of a public officer other than the Court shall be in Form No.23 and shall be addressed to the head of the department concerned.

8. Sub Rule(2) states that every application for such summons shall be made by a verified petition stating that

(i) the documents or documents the production of which is required;

(ii) the relevancy of the document and

(iii) in case where the production of a certified copy would answer the purpose, whether application was made to the proper officer for a