APHC010592532024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3247/2024 Between:

1. MUPPALA VENKATA RAMA RAJU, S/O VENGAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF GG RACHAPALLI H/O L.R.PALLI VILLAGE, L.R.PALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. SMT SHAIK ASRAFUN, W/O JABBAR, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE. RESIDENT OF LAKKIREDDIPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

2. S ABDUL JABBAR, S/O AMMARU SAHIB, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC .AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF LAKKIREDDIPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

3. SMT S GHOUSIA, W/O PEERA BASHA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE. RESIDENT OF LAKKIREDDIPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to set aside the order passed in I.A.NO. 1376 of 2024 in O.S.N0.86 OF 2017, dated 08-11-2024 on the file of the Honourable Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lakkireddipalli Annamayya District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings by setting aside the Decree and Order passed in I.A.NO. 1376 of 2024 in 0.S.N0.86 OF 2017, dated 08-11-2024 on the file of the Honourable Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lakkireddipalli, Annamayya District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. VUTUPALLI RAJANNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GUTTAPALEM VIJAYA KUMAR The Court made the following:

ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 08.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.1376 of 2024 in O.S.No.86 of 2017 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Lakkireddipalli.

2. The facts that led to filing of the Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that:

In the suit filed by him for permanent injunction vide O.S.No.86 of

2017, the petitioner filed the petition vide I.A.No.1376 of 2024 for summoning the Tahsildar for cause production of the revenue documents and depose as court witness, contending that the same is very crucial and essential to prove his claim for permanent injunction. The respondent resisted the claim by filing counter that the documents sought to be produced by summoning the Tahsildar being public documents, certified copies can be obtained and for that purpose there is no need to summon, unless the petitioner proves that he tried but failed to obtain certified copies. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon considering the material available, the learned trial Judge dismissed the application, concurring with the contentions raised by the respondents that the petitioner did not file any proof that he attempted to get certified copies of the documents. The said order of dismissal has been assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard Sri Vutupalli Rajanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for respondents.

4. Both the learned counsel advanced arguments in tune with the pleadings before the trial Court, hence needless to reiterate them.

5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6. Rule 130 of the Civil Rules of Practice allows for obtaining certified copies of public documents to be filed in court instead of summoning officials to produce the original records. This rule empowers the court to issue a certificate to a party, enabling them to obtain certified copies from public authorities, thus avoiding unnecessary summoning of public servant.

7. Under Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (and corresponding Section 76 of the Bharatiya Sak