THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2201 OF 2025

ORDER:

Heard, Mr.N.Avaneesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Chalakani Venkat Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 09.06.2025 passed in I.A. No. 345 of 2025 in O.S. No. 392 of 2024 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajanna Sircilla.

3. The revision petitioners are defendant Nos. 1 to 5, 10, and 11. During trial of the suit, the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 filed a petition under Order XVI Rules 6 and 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking a direction to the Tahsildar, Boinpally, to produce the final mutation records, namely:

(i) Mutation proceedings dated 10.12.2015 in File Nos. B/1215/2015 and B/1218/2015;

(ii) 13-B Certificate, File No. ROR/16/2005;

(iii) 13-B, File No. ROR/VRS/492/1998;

(iv) 13-C Certificate, File No. ROR/16/2005;

(v) 13-C, File No. ROR/VRS/1998;

(vi) 13-C, File No. ROR/V/1258/1989;

(vii) Certified Copy of Book No. II;

(viii) Certified Copy of 13-B, File No. ROR/V/1260/1989; and (ix) 13-B, File No. ROR/V/1268/1989,and to adduce the said documents in evidence.

4. The relevant facts are that respondents No. 1 and 2 instituted the suit seeking a decree of perpetual injunction against the revision petitioners. During the pendency of the proceedings, the revision petitioners filed a counterclaim also seeking perpetual injunction. In the course of trial, defendants No. 1 to 4 filed the above mentioned petition. Upon considering the pleadings and submissions, the trial Court dismissed the petition, which has led to the present revision.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issues raised in the counterclaim require proper adjudication and that the documents sought from the Tahsildar are material for establishing their claim. It was contended that the trial Court, in the interest of justice, ought to have permitted production of the said records, and therefore interference by this Court is warranted.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners, in effect, sought a direction to summon the Tahsildar along with the records. The trial Court, after considering the submissions, rightly invoked Rule 129(3) of the Civil Rules of Practice and dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioners failed to comply with the procedure prescribed therein. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be sustained.

7. I have perused the material on records.

8. The prayer in the petition is to summon the records from the Tahsildar, Boinpally, and to examine him as a witness. A plain reading of the relief sought makes it clear that the petitioners are requesting the Court to issue summons for the production of public records.

9. Rule 129(3) of the Civil Rules of Practice categorically provides that no Court shall issue such summons unless it is satisfied that production of the original document is necessary, or that an application for a certified copy has been duly made and refused. The Rule further mandates that, in every case, the Court shall record its reasons in writing before issuing such summons and require the applicant to deposit such amount as the Court may determine to meet the estimated cost of preparing a copy of the document when produced.

10. The underlying rationale of Rule 129(3) is that public records are ordinarily available in the form of certified copies, which are legally admissible under Sections 74 and 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the Court is not required, as a matter of course, to summon original public records from public offices, unless exceptional circumstances exist which necessitate such production. Judicial pronouncements have consistently emphasized that the extraordinary procedure of summoning public officers with records should be resorted to sparingly and only when certified copies are either unavailable or insu