Judgment :- Animadverting upon the order dated 20.08.2008 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee in I.A.No.1251 of 2008 in O.S.No.359 of 1995, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The summarization and summation of the relevant facts, as stood exposited from the records could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: The revision petitioner/plaintiff herein filed the suit in O.S.No.359 of 1995 seeking the following relief: "For a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, etc. from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property described in the schedule" During the pendency of the suit, I.A.No.1251 of 2008 was filed to summon an Officer of Commissionerate of Survey and Settlement to produce records pertaining to issuance of patta relating to the suit property and to give evidence. Even though no counter was filed by the defendants nonetheless, the Court dismissed it. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision is focussed on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would develop his argument to the effect that in fact the plaintiff is in possession of 16 cents of land whereas the Revenue Department issued patta only for 11 cents and the prayer in the suit itself is for giving direction to the Revenue authorities to issue patta for 16 cents and as such it is just and necessary to summon the Official concerned to produce the relevant documents and to give evidence. 5. A mere perusal of the lower courts order would demonstrate that the lower court elaborately went into the merits of the case in the I.A itself relating to the defect in not praying for declaration of title and also the impropriety on the part of the plaintiff in seeking issuance of patta in violation of Section 14 of the patta Pass Book Act. In my considered opinion, the lower Court could have refrained from discussing in such depth in the interim application for summoning the officer, all those facts. 6. In my considered opinion, the lower Court could have refrained from discussing in such depth in the interim application for summoning the officer, all those facts. 6. No doubt, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would correctly highlight that the matter has been pending before the lower court ever since 1995 and without taking any steps all along, the matter has been dragged on. However, the fact remains that the plaintiff should have the liberty of examining the official concerned, as it appears from the records that the relief sought is mainly as against the revenue officials questioning their erroneous decision. Without in any manner deciding on the merits of the claim of the petitioner, I would like to give liberty to the petitioner to summon the official concerned. Hence, the order of the lower Court is set aside and the I.A is allowed. The lower Court is directed to issue summons as prayed for in the I.A. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 7. In view of the fact that the suit is of the year 1995, both the sides shall co-operate with the Court for early disposal of the suit, so to say, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.