THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1013 OF 2025

ORDER :

This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners to set aside the order and decree in I.A. No.13 of 2025 in O.S. No.141 of 2015 dated 05.03.2025 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge at Khammam, (for short ‘Trial Court’).

2. Heard Mr. R. Dheeraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Kowthuru Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12, and perused the material on record.

3. The petitioners are plaintiff Nos.6 and 7, respondent Nos.1 to 13 are defendant Nos.1 to 13 and respondent Nos.14 to 19 are plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 and 8 in O.S. No.141 of 2015 pending on the file of the Trial Court. The suit in O.S. No.141 of 2015 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have filed I.A. No.13 of 2025 to issue summons to the Tahsildar, Khammam Urban Mandal, who has issued Memo vide RCNo.A/07/2025 dated 31.01.2025, to examine him as a Court witness for deposing his evidence and for identifying the said Memo.

4. It is submitted that the suit is coming up for the rebuttal evidence and the plaintiffs sought for certified copies of revenue records from the Tahsildar under the Right to Information Act 2005. The Tahsildar, Khammam Urban Mandal, has issued a Memo vide RCNo.A/07/2025 dated 31.01.2025 stating that there is no information available in his office regarding the certified copies. That, if copies have been issued, it would disprove the case of the defendants that partition had taken place and the father of the plaintiffs, late Mr. Satyala Ananthaiah, had sold the lands which allegedly fell to his share during the partition. The memo issued by the Tahsildar, Khammam Urban Mandal, establishes the fact that the contentions of the defendants regarding partition and sale are false and baseless, and it is necessary to get the memo marked as Exhibit (in A series) through the official who has issued the same.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by the defendants in I.A. No.13 of 2025, it is contended that the Memo dated 31.01.2025 is not relevant for the just disposal of the case. The plaintiffs have filed the application to drag the case, as they lost their confidence to win the case. The suit was filed in the year 2015 and now in 2025, the instant application is filed. The RTI information vide Memo dated 31.01.2025 was issued to their counsel, Mr. G. Moses Christopher, Advocate, and not to the plaintiffs.

6. Having considered the contentions of the plaintiffs and the defendants, the Trial Court has dismissed the I.A. No.13 of 2025 in O.S. No.141 of 2015 by the order dated 05.03.2025. The findings of the Trial Court read as under:

“8. The entire process of obtaining information under RTI Act is only by legal counsel not by the petitioner himself. This intermediary handling weakens the evidentiary value of the RTI response because it is not directly connected to the party on record. Summoning a public officer solely to confirm the memo obtained through counsel rather than the party himself is irregular. The revenue records are already available in the suit proceedings and admitting the same by Tahsildar, at this juncture for a limited purpose and identifying a Memo which does not directly decide title or partition is irrelevant and unnecessary.

9. The Memo itself can be marked and proved through the party himself and there is no compelling necessity to summon the Tahsildar when the dispute is pertaining to partition which can be established through other direct evidence. This Court is of the view that allowing this petition would open the doors of further unnecessary delays transforming the suit into administrative practice at the Tahsildar Office who is wholly irrelevant to the adjudication of partition and possession which are the core issues of the suit.

10. In view of the unexplained delay, weak evidentiary value of the memo ob