ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition by the unsuccessful defendants is directed against the orders of dismissal, dated 27.03.2019, of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Gudivada, made in I.A.No.20 of 2019 in O.S.No.164 of 2010 filed under Order XVI Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, requesting to issue witness summons to the Tahasildar and Panchayat Secretary of Nagapuram village, to attend before the Court along with record relating to R.S.No.889/2 of Nagapuram village of Peddaparupudi Mandal and give evidence.

2. Heard Sri P. S. P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants and Sri D.Satya Siva Darshan, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.

3. The case of the defendants, as per the affidavit of the 3rd defendant filed in support of the present application, in brief, is this:

The suit is filed seeking permanent injunction. The plaint schedule property was allotted to the defendants under a government scheme in the year 1982 and since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The revenue records since 1982 to 2010 along with the reports submitted by the Surveyor are necessary to establish the possession of the defendants. Therefore, the Tahasildar, who is the custodian of the records, is to be directed to attend before the Court and depose with reference to Ac.11.90 cents in R.S.No.889/2 of Nagapuram village. So also, it is further necessary to summon the Panchayat Secretary to produce agenda and resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat for the year 1981-83 for R.S.No.889/2. 4. The documents sought to be produced by summoning the Tahasildar, Pedaparupudi, are (i) Proceedings of the Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna in RC.S.6/1032/81, dated 11.02.1981, (ii) Proceedings of the Project Director, DRDA, Krishna at Machilipatnam in RC No.164/81/82, dated 02.09.1981; (iii) Cist Collection register for the R.S.No.889/2; and, (iv) Adangals for the period from 1982 to 2010; and the documents sought to be produced by summoning the Panchayat Secretary, Nagapuram are (i) agenda and resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat in year 1981-82 for issuance of property to petitioners in R.S.No.889/2; and (ii) auctions conducted by the Panchayat in R.S.No.889/2 till the date of allotment of property to the petitioners under the Government Scheme.

5. The 1st respondent filed counter opposing the petition and alleging that the petitioners, having slept over all these years over their rights and without making any attempt to get the copies of the documents, which are public documents, filed the present petition without stating any reasons, seeking to summon the witnesses. The petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

6. On merits, the trial Court, dismissed the application of the petitioners while observing that nothing prevented the petitioners from obtaining certified copies of those documents or obtaining the same under the Right to Information Act, and therefore, summoning public officials to produce the documents which can be produced by obtaining certified copies, is unnecessary.

7. Aggrieved of the orders of the trial Court, the present revision petition is filed reiterating that consideration of the request of the petitioners is necessary to prove their ownership, possession and enjoyment of the property and that the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition.

8. Admittedly, all the aforesaid documents are public documents of which certified copies could be obtained and filed. Under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, every public officer like the Revenue officials having custody of public document/s, which any person has right to inspect, shall give to that person on demand, a certified copy or copies of such document/s on payment of the necessary fee thereof. Further, under Section 77 of the said Act, certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they