##PAGE1##

1

2026:APHC:2259

APHC010284762025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3209]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 1357 of 2025

Between:

1. T. LAKSHMAIAH, S/o.(LATE) T.RAMAIAH, R/O D.NO. 27-1001/2,

RAMNAGAR COLONY, CHITTOOR.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. T RAMAIAH, S/O (LATE) TRAMAIAH RESIDING AT ATHP,0498,

CHERUVUMUNDARA KANDRIGA,69 MADHAVARAM POST,

YADAMARI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

2. T HARI, S/O (LATE) CHENGAIAH, R/O KUNCHAMPALLE, NO.70,

JANGALAPALLE YADAMARI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

3. T DORASWAMY, S/O (LATE) TRAMAIAH, R/O D.NO.28-1165/2

GANGANAPALLE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

4. T R SUBRAMANYAM, S/O (LATE) TRAMAIAH, R/O D.NO.27-89,

RAJA REDDY STREET, RAMNAGAR COLONY, CHITTOOR

DISTRICT.

5. T BALAKRISHNA, S/O (LATE) TRAMAIAH, JAILKHANA STREET,

MITTOOR.CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. Mr.VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. Mr.M SIVA KUMAR

2

2026:APHC:2259

The Court made the following Order:

The Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders dated 25.04.2025

in I.A.No.28 of 2025 in O.S.No.8 of 2017 on the file of the Court of First

Additional District Judge, Chittoor.

2. The petitioner herein is the Defendant No.1 in the said suit. The 1^st

respondent / plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title in respect of the plaint

schedule property and to grant permanent injunction restraining the

defendants, their men, agents etc., from in any way interfering with the

plaintiff’s peaceful possession of the suit schedule properties.

3. The petitioner / 1^st defendant filed a written statement and contesting the

matter. He filed the above said I.A., under Order XVI Rule 7 of Code of Civil

Procedure (for short ‘C.P.C.’) to issue summons to the Chief Executive Officer,

Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society Limited, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor

District to cause production of original Registered Simple Mortgage Deed

dated 26.04.2004 and other loan records and documents, the details of which

are mentioned in the petition and to give evidence. The 1^st respondent /

plaintiff filed counter and resisted the application, which came to be dismissed

by the impugned order.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the plaint

averments and the defence taken by the petitioner / 1^st defendant, more

particularly in Para No.7 of the written statement, advanced arguments and

contends that the learned Trial Court went wrong in dismissing the application

3

in question without considering the matter in a proper perspective. He submits

that the learned Trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and

went wrong in dismissing the I.A., on unsustainable grounds, without

considering that the documents sought to be summoned are essential for a

just and proper adjudication of the issue involved in the suit. He also contends

that the learned Trial Court ought to have appreciated that whether the

petitioner is a party to the document or not, is not a material aspect to consider

the prayer for summoning of the document and further that filing of a criminal

compliant in respect of the documents sought to be summoned is not a bar or

come in the way of the petitioner to invoke the other remedies available in

Law. Making the said submissions and relying on the decisions in Nankani

Kishan v. M.Shankar

Narayana1,

N.Balaraju v.

G.Vidyadhar2,

Addagatla

Narendar v. Some Vijayalakshmi, 2006 (3) ALD 94 and Paruchuri Adi Lakshmi v.

Paruchuri Nagendramma and Ors.,, 2026:APHC:2259 etc., the learned counsel seeks to allow

the Revision Petition by setting aside the order under challenge.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent / plaintiff

sought to sustain the impugned order contending that the same is well

considered and that there is no illegality or perversity warranting interference

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He submits that in the affidavit

fil