ORDER:

1. The present civil revision petition has been directed against order dated 09.01.2023 in I.A.No.401 of 2022 in O.S.No.59 of 1999 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet (hereinafter referred to as (cid:145)trial Court(cid:146)), wherein and whereby, the application filed by the revision petitioners herein for summoning respondent No.3 herein i.e., Tahsildar, Kosgi Mandal, to cross verify documents received under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short (cid:145)the RTI Act(cid:146)) and mark them through the Tahsildar, who was examined previously as D.W.1 in the suit, was dismissed with costs.

2. The pleadings of the revision petitioners show that they have filed the aforesaid suit for declaration and injunction before the trial Court. After framing additional issues, the revision petitioners adduced additional evidence and also marked certain documents obtained under the RTI Act from the Tahsildar, in file No.B/6/2021, dated 03.02.2021. The present application is filed in order to cross-verify such documents with originals maintained by the Tahsil Office and to examine and mark the originals through the Tahsildar.

3. The official respondents have not filed any counter before the trial Court. Whereas, the unofficial respondents filed their counter before the trial Court denying the genuineness of documents obtained by the revision petitioners under the Act. They contended that while conducting the alleged survey, no notice was given to them and the alleged survey was done by the Surveyor in collusion with the revision petitioners.

4. The trial Court having considered the contention and stage of proceedings dismissed the application of the revision petitioners.

Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the trial court has not properly appreciated the relevancy of the evidence and the purpose for which the witness was sought to be summoned and true spirit of Order XVI Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure has not been properly appreciated, as such the impugned order suffers from perversity.

6. As seen from the prayer of the petition, the revision petitioners wanted to prove the genuineness of the documents obtained by them under the RTI Act, which consist certain inter- departmental communications in between the officers of different levels along with survey report. According to the revision petitioners, the contents of the said survey report reveals existence of rice mill in the suit schedule property. In fact, such existence was not denied in the written statement filed by the official respondents in the main suit. In the said circumstances, the revision petitioners sought to prove the existence of structure from the contents of the documents, which they obtained from the Tahsil office and for the very same purpose, they wanted to summon the Tahsildar.

7. The trial Court has not taken into account Sections 74, 76, 77 and 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which read as follows:

(cid:147)Section 74: Public documents:- (cid:150) The following documents are public documents: (cid:150)

(1) documents forming the acts or records of the acts (cid:150)(cid:150)

(i) of the sovereign authority, (ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country;

(2) public records kept [in any State] of private documents.

Section 76: Certified copies of public documents:- Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees there for, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is auth