Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gudivaka Ankineedu vs The State Of Ap on 17 September, 2019
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA
C.R.P. No. 4124 of 2017
O R D E R:-
This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda in I.A.No.346 of 2016 in I.A.No.542 of 2015 in O.S.No.81 of 2015, dated 20.01.2017.
2. The above petition is filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC by the plaintiff to receive purportedly certified copies under Right to Information Act of certain pattas in favour of third parties who are not concerned to the suit. The petitioner sought to receive those documents in I.A.No.542 of 2015 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
3. Considering the objections on behalf of the respondents, the learned trial Judge in his discretion refused to receive these documents to be part of the record.
4. Now, it is contended by the revision petitioner that the documents sought to be produced are only for the limited purpose to compare the signature on the patta, which he has produced in support of his claim, of the then Tahsildar and the documents now sought to be produced also bear the signature of the Tahsildar. Thus it is stated that these signatures are required to be compared for better adjudication of the matter in issue.
5. It is contended on behalf of Respondents 3 and 4 that the property in dispute is a private land and the question of issuance of any patta by the Government, therefore, will not arise. In support of such contention, counter filed by on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 in I.A.No.542 of 2015 is also relied on wherein it has been stated that the patta so produced by the petitioner is a fake document while supporting the contention of respondents 3 and 4, that the land in dispute is a MVR,J 2 CRP_4124_2017 private patta land. Thus, on behalf of respondents 3 and 4, it is sought to dismiss this revision, further stating that on a flimsy ground the Civil Revision Petition is filed, and on account of the interim order granted in the C.R.P., the trial in the suit is also held up.
6. The petitioner laid the suit against the respondents with reference to a house-site of Ac.0-05 cents described as a part of "Gramakantam" in R.S.No. 272/1 of Avanigadda village, Krishna District. Predominantly, the claim of the petitioner is based on an alleged patta granted in his favour in respect of this plot, while he also asserted that he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same.
7. The respondents as defendants in the suit have contested the above claim asserting that this patta is a part of private property belonging to respondents 3 and 4.
8. It is further to be noted that no add-interim injunction has been granted in favour of the petitioner in I.A.No.542 of 2015 and it is not disposed of as such, according to the contentions of both the parties. It is also informed in the course of hearing by the counsel for respondents 3 and 4 that the trial has already commenced in the suit and the petitioner as the plaintiff has chosen to file his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief on 01.07.2019.
9. In the above backdrop, while the documents are sought to be produced that too for consideration of I.A.No.542 of 2015, on behalf of the petitioner, reception of these documents for such purpose sought by the petitioner is apparently unnecessary. As rightly contended by respondents 3 and 4, if at all the revision petitioner intends to have the documents for the purpose of comparison of the signature of the then Tahsildar, whose purported signature is stated to be appearing on the MVR,J 3 CRP_4124_2017 patta relied on by him, he can as well take steps for production of those documents through to the concerned authorities.
10. Therefore, finding no justification to receive the documents sought to be produced on behalf of the petitioner and that there is no irregularity or want of proper exercise of jurisdiction by the learned trial Judge, this Civil Revision Petition has to be dismissed.
11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. All the interim orders are vacated.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
___________________ M. VENKATA RAMANA, J 17.09.2019 bcj