The High Court · 2025

...PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS NOS 1 TO 5,1O & 11 AND 1. Nakka Divakar, S/o. Hanmandlu, Aged about 31 years, Occ. Advocate. R/o H.No. 1-30, ' Marlapet village, Boinpally mandal, Karimnagar District. 2. NakkaDilip Kumar, S/o. Hanmandlu, Aged about 28 years. Occ. Private Employee, Rl/o H.No. 1-30, Marlapet village, Boinpally mandal, Karimnagar District.

3. Juwenthulalaxma Reddy, S/o. Sal Reddy, Aged about 62, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Marlapeta village, Boinpallymandal, Karimnagar District.

4. Juvventhula Raji Reddy, S/o. Sai Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Marlapeta village, Boinpallymandal, Karimnagar District.

5. Juwenthula Ramana Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy. Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, Fl/o. Marlapeta village, Boinpallymandal, Karimnagar District.

6. Juwenthula Keshava Reddy, S/o. Umma Reddy. Aged about 62 years, Occ. Agriculture. R/o. Elabotharam village, Karimnagar mandal and District.

7. JuwenthulaRamiaipal Reddy, S/o. Sanjeeva Reddy, Aged about 58 years. Occ. Agriculture, Fl/o. Marlapeta village, Boinpallymandal, Karimnagar District.

8. JuwenthulaSapala, W/o. Raji Reddy, Aged about 48 years. Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Marlapeta village, Boinpallymandal, Karimnagar District.

9. Juwenthula Raii Reddy, S/o. Prathapa Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rio. Marlapeta villaie, Boinpallymandal, Karimnagar District.

10. ParlapelliPremsagar, S/o. Durgaiah, Aged about 37 years, Occ. Agriculture. R/o. Marlapeta village, Boinpallymandal, Karimnagar District.

11. Juwenthula Srilatha, W/o. Sathyanarayana Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o.H.No.9-06-89, Ramnagar, Karimnagar District.

12. Juwenthula Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o. Hanmantha Reddy, Aged about 46 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o R/o. H.No.9-06-89, Ramnagar, Karimnagar District.

13. Bethi Narsimha Reddy, S/o. Raghava Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Retired R.T.0 Employee, R/o. Marlapeta village, Boinpallymandal, Karimnag'ar District.

14. BimreddyGovinda Reddy, S/o. Narsimha Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Retired R.T.O Employee. R/o. Marlapeta village, Boinpallymandal, Karimnagar District. .:.RESPON DENTS/PLAI NTIFFS !A NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further'proceedings in OS. No. 392 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Rajanna Siricilla, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. NARAPARA"JU AVANEESH Counsel for the Respondents: CHALAKANI VENKAT YADAV The Court made the following: ORDER: I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 220{ OF 2025 ORD ER: 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 l.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 triat of the suit, the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 filed a petition under ordel 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,1121512015 and B/121812015; (ii) 13-B Certificate, File No. ROR11612005; (iii) 13-B, File No. RORA/RS/492I1998; (iv) 13-C Certificate, File No. ROR/1612005; (v) 13-C, File No. RORA/RS/1998; (vi) 13-C, File No. RORNl1258l1989; ,€ 2 (vii) Certified Copy of Book No. ll; (viii) Certified Copy of 13-B, File No. ROR N11260t1989; and (ix) 13-8, File No. RORA//126811989,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. ln 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. lt 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 \ \ 3 .,] 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. g. 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 and76 of the lndian Evidence Act, 1872' Therefore, the Court is not required, aS a matter of course, to summgo-, 4 .) 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 insufficient for adjudication of the dispute.

11. ln the present case, there are no specific pleadings or material to show that the petitioners had first approached the competent authority for issuance of certified copies and that such request had been refused. ln the absence of such averments, and without demonstrating any exceptional circumstances, the petitioners cannot directty invoke the Court's jurisdiction to summon the public officer along with original records. Consequently, the trial Court, while invoking Rule 129(3) of the Civil Rules of Practice, rightly held that the petitioners failed to adhere to the mandatory procedure prescribed therein.

12. Thus, this Court finds that the order of the trial Court is in strict conformity with the settled legal position and procedure. The reasoning adopted by the Court below cannot be faulted, as it preserves both procedural discipline and judicial economy. \ \ 5

13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the rights of the petitioners are reserved to obtain certified copies of the relevant records from the competent authorities, in accordance with law, and to place the same before the trial Court in order to substantiate their claim. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. M. NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR L9 I SECTION OFFICER \ //TRUE COPYII To,

1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge at Rajanna Siricilla, 2. One CC to Sri. Naraparaju Avaneesh, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Chalakani Venkat Yadav, Advocate tOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies PSI(DDS a. HIGH Court DATED:01 10912025 3 E .( HE STA \.} C)() 1 6 JAN 2026 CRP.No.2201 of 2025 115 r,:A. I ',.i.1 DISMISSED THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION 3