Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pothunuri Srikanth vs Pothunuri Srikumar on 22 November, 2022
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1561 of 2022
Between:
Pothunuri Srikanth, S/o Venkateswararao,
Hindu, aged about 50 years, R/o new Colony,
Railway Station Road, Srungavarapukota
village & Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
... Petitioner/Plaintiff.
Versus
Pothunuri Srikumar, S/o Venkateswararao,
aged about 56 years, Near Rice Mill, New
Colony, Railway Station Road,
Srungavarapukota village & Mandal,
Vizianagaram District and another.
... Respondents/Defendants.
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C.Upendra
Counsel for respondents : Sri Dasari SVVSV Prasad
ORDER
Plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 11.07.2022 in I.A.No.140 of 2022 in O.S.No.12 of 2008 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Srungavarpukota.
2. Plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.12 of 2008 against the defendants seeking perpetual injunction. In support of case of plaintiff, he filed Exs.A-1 to A-6, which includes tax 2 receipts dated 23.03.2004 and 02.11.2007. By virtue of orders in C.R.P.No.5367 of 2018, P.W.1 was recalled and Exs.A-7 to A-9 were marked. P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of plaintiff.
3. Plaintiff filed I.A.No.140 of 2022 under Rule 129 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice to issue summons to the Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, S.Kota to cause production of house tax demand register of Gram Panchayat relating to Assessment No.1622 and 1623 for the years 2008 to 2013.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended interalia that suit house originally belonged to Pasi Seetha; that during her lifetime, she executed a Will dated 15.05.2007 and she died on 13.08.2007; that after her death, the local authorities carried out mutation incorporating the name of plaintiff in the place of Pasi Seetha and he paid tax for the assessment Nos.1622 and 1623; that on 18.06.2022 the suit was dismissed for default; that defendants taking advantage of dismissal of suit obtained mutation in his name for portion of plaint schedule property and hence, the present 3 application is filed seeking to summon Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, S.Kota to cause production of house tax demand register of Gram Panchayat relating to Assessment No.1622 and 1623 for the years 2008 to 2013 as they are necessary for just decision in the suit, as the change of mutation will not correctly reflect in the copies.
5. Counter was filed by respondents opposing the application. In the counter it was contended that it is the primary duty of the plaintiff to prove his case on the strength of his documents. The petitioner ought to have obtained public copies and choose to file the same as contemplated under law and thus, prayed to dismiss the suit.
6. By order dated 11.07.2022, the trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that suit is of the year 2008 and it is oldest matter on the file of that Court and summoning the Executive Officer will cause further delay in disposing of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.
7. Heard Sri C.Upendra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Dasari SVVSV Prasad, learned counsel for respondents. 4
8. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that no purpose would be served in getting certified copies as change of mutation will not correctly reflect in the copies. He also would submit that if the original is produced, it will be helpful to the court to appreciate the document in a proper perspective. Thus, prayed to set aside the order under revision.
9. Learned counsel for respondents supported the order of the trial Court.
10. It is apt to extract Rule 129 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice for better appreciation.
129. (76) Production of records in the custody of a Public Officer other than a court:-
1. A summons for the production of records in the custody of the Public Officer other than a court shall be in Form No. 23 and shall be addressed to the Head of the office concerned and in the case of a summons to a District Registrar or a Sub-Registrar of Assurances, it shall be addressed to the Registrar or Sub- Registrar in whose office, or sub-office, as the case may be, the required records are kept. Provided that, where the summons is for the production of village accounts, including filed measurement books, such summons shall be addressed to the Tahsildar or the Deputy Tahsildar in independent charge as the case may be. Provided, further that when the summons is for production of records in the custody of high dignitaries like the Speaker of the Lok-Sabha or State Legislative Council 5 etc., the summons shall be in the form of a letter of request in form No. 23-A.
2. Every application for such summons shall made by an affidavit setting out (1) the document or documents the production of which is require; (2) the relevancy of the document or documents; and (3) in cases where the production of a certified copy or copies and the result of such application.
3. No court shall issue such summons unless it considers the production of the original necessary or is satisfied that the application for a certified copy has been duly made and has not been granted. The court shall in every case record its reasons in writing and shall require the applicant to deposit in court, before the summons is issued, to abide by the order of the court, such sum as it may consider necessary to meet the estimated cost of making a copy of the document when produced (4) Unless the court requires the production of the original, every such summons to a public officer shall state that he is at liberty to produce, instead of the original, a copy certified in the manner prescribed by section 76 of the Evidence Act.
(5) Nothing in the above rules shall prevent a court of its own motion from issuing a summons for the production of public records or other documents in the custody of Public Officer in accordance with sub-rule (1), if it thinks it necessary for the ends of justice to do so. The court shall, in every case, record its reasons in writing.
11. A perusal of Rule 129 (3) would indicate that issuance of summons would arise only the court considers that production of original is necessary and certified copy is not duly granted. Thus, in cases where production of original is necessary, the deponent has to explain regarding filing of any 6 application to get certified copies and result of such application. However, in the case on hand, plaintiff in the affidavit asserted that production of certified copies will not meet the ends of justice as the change of mutation will not correctly reflect in the copies. It is pertinent to mention here that Court below, in fact, observed that it is necessary that all applications of this type even they are bonafide and genuine, have to be filed at a proper point of time in the proceedings.
12. The ground on which the trial Court dismissed the application is that suit is of the year 2008 and it is oldest one and summoning the Executive Officer will cause further delay in disposing of the suit. Suit is filed for injunction basing on the Will and the schedule property is a house property. Plaintiff is claiming property after death of executant and asserted that the local authorities mutated his name. After the suit was dismissed, according to the plaintiff, defendant got mutated his name for portion of schedule property. In view of specific assertion in the affidavit that certified copies will not reflect the correct entries, to meet the ends of justice and to decide the matter judicially, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application.
7
13. In view of the above discussion, the order dated 11.07.2022 in I.A.No.140 of 2022 in O.S.No.12 of 2008 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Srungavarpukota is set aside. I.A.No.140 of 2022 is allowed. Trial Court shall issue summons to the Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, S.Kota to cause production of house tax demand register of Gram Panchayat relating to Assessment No.1622 and 1623 for the years 2008 to 2013.
14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Since the suit is of the year 2008, the trial Court shall dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties shall cooperate for expeditious disposal of the suit.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
_________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J 22nd November, 2022 PVD