THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2524 of 2023

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred against

the order dated 11.08.2023 in I.A. No. 570 of 2023 in O.S. No. 1396 of 2022 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, at

Medchal Malkajgiri.

2. The petitioner herein filed the subject suit for declaration of title consequential recovery of possession and consequential cancellation of registered sale deed bearing No.3644 of 1993, agreement of sale-cum-GPA bearing No.15732 of 2006 and sale deed bearing No. 3464 of 2008, as plaintiff vide O.S. No. 1396 (old No. 1889 of 2012) of 2021 under Order VII Rule 1 to 6 r/w Section

26 Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’).

3. The petitioner herein had filed the underlying interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 570 of 2023 in the subject suit seeking to summon the respondent No.1 as witness to produce Original Pan Card. The said application was filed on the ground that in order to

identify the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 signature for effective adjudication of the case.

4. The trial Court dismissed the underlying interlocutory application holding that, calling the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 to produce the said document by itself would not result in petitioner substantiating his case as he failed to show reasonable and satisfactory ground to consider his plea at the stage of cross-

examination of DW-1.

5. Further, the trial Court observed that, although the petitioner claimed to have become aware of the original PAN Card of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 bearing his signature in the plaint, he did not disclose as to how he obtained access to the photocopy of the said document. The petitioner also failed to provide any cogent reasons for the relevance of summoning respondent No.1/defendant No.1 at the stage of cross-examination of DW-1.

6. Accordingly, the trial Court held that the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 cannot be called for to produce the said document and the same was not necessary for the adjudication of the matter.

7. Aggrieved by the above said order dated 11.08.2023 the petitioner herein has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

9. In the present case, the petitioner/plaintiff contend that the impugned order is contrary to law and the trial Court failed to consider the scope and object of the certified copy and did not exercise its jurisdiction in considering the bona fides of the application in the suit, despite it being necessary and relevant document to substantiate the suit; that he is entitled and has right to seek document from respondent No.1/defendant No.1, hence, the trial Court has ample power to summon the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 to produce the said document for the effective adjudication of the suit.

10. Per Contra, the respondents contend that the petitioner/plaintiff herein filed the petition under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC only to protract the suit proceedings at the stage of cross-examination of DW-1, and further there is no averment in the plaint in respect of the said document which is now sought to be summoned by the petitioner herein. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

11. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

12. In the facts at hand, the petitioner herein is seeking production of Original PAN Card by respondent No.1/defendant No.1 to identify the signature available therein. However, it is to be noted that the petitioner herein failed to establish by cogent reasons the need for the trial Court to summon the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 at the stage of cross-examination.

13. Order XVI Rule 6 CPC authorizes the Court to summon any person to produce a document without being summoned to give evidence. The discretion vesting with the Court would have to be exercised judiciously.

14. It is to be noted that the Court wh