COMMON ORDER:

CRP No. 935 of 2023 is filed aggrieved by the Docket Order dated 28.03.2023 in I.A.Nos.147 of 2023 in O.S.No.6 of 2015 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram, in dismissing the application to reopen the suit to examine the Tahsildar, Kamalapuram.

2. CRP No. 936 of 2023 is filed aggrieved by the Order dated 28.03.2023 in I.A.Nos.146 of 2023 in O.S.No.6 of 2015 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram, in dismissing the application filed under Order 16 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon Tahsildar, Kamalapuram to produce documents with respect to Ex.B.3 and B.4 and Ex.A.4.

3. The Petitioners are the Defendants. A suit was filed by the respondent No.1 herein for declaration of title and for consequential permanent injunction with regard to the land for an extent of Ac.0.04 cents in Sy.No.80-1A of Vibharapuram Village, Kamalapuram Mandal, Kadapa District.

4. The case of the Respondent No.1/Plaintiff is that the suit schedule property originally belongs to Kuppuru Rami Reddy. The said person sold the property to one Chapati Basi Reddy, S/o Venkata Reddy under a registered Sale Deed dated 02.07.1973. Thereafter, Chapati Basi Reddy executed a registered Sale Deed in favour of Paidala Veera Reddy on 23.03.1978. Further, the sale was executed on 10.10.1991 in favour of the Plaintiff under a registered Sale Deed. His further plea is that the Plaintiff raised loans from the Nationalized Banks on the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued by the revenue authorities in his favour.

5. While so, the Defendants approached the revenue authorities for cancellation of pattadar Passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the Plaintiff and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kamlapuram, ordered for deletion of the suit survey number from the passbook of the Plaintiff. In the appeal and the revision filed by the Plaintiff, the Order of the M.R.O, Kamalapuram was confirmed. It was further stated that challenging the same, a Writ Petition was filed before this Court and the same also confirmed the Order of the M.R.O, Kamalapuram. In spite of having registered sale deeds, the present suit was filed by him for the above mentioned reliefs.

6. The Defendants filed their elaborate Written Statement disputing the claim of the Plaintiff. After conclusion of the trial, above applications were filed by the Defendant Nos. 2,4,5, 9 and 10 seeking to reopen the suit and summon the Tahsildar to give evidence since certain questions were posed doubting the revenue records issued in favour of the Defendants.

7. The trial Court, while relying upon a Judgment of this Court in Vooda Venkat Rao v Vooda Surya Ramu @ Surya Rao, [2016 (6) ALD 59] held that Petitioners should first show the documents to disprove the suggestions made by the Plaintiff Counsel to Dw.1 during the cross examination and in the absence any record, the Tahsildar cannot be summoned and the provisions of Order 16 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked.

Hence, the present Civil Revision Petitions.

8. Heard Sri G. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioners.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that summoning the Tahsildar would be relevant in the light of the suggestion that were made to DW.1 in the cross examination doubting the genuiness of Ex.B.5 and other documents.

10. This Court, having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners, is of the opinion that merely because certain suggestions were posed by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1/Plaintiff to DW.1, the same would not be a ground to summon the Tahsildar. The Petitioners can seek for a copy of the revenue records relevant for the purpose of case and file the same before the trial Court and without taking such a step as observed in the Judgment relied upon by the trial Court, the application seeking for summoning of the Tahsildar straight away cannot be entertained.

11. Apart from that, the suit being one for declaration of title and as the parties to the suit are relying on