Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 925 (AP)

Shaik Ujauddin v. Veerabhadra Uma Devi

2012-09-27

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2012
Judgment This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 16-3-2012 in I.A.No.284/2012 in O.S.No.104/2008 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. The petitioner filed the above mentioned suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with his possession of the suit schedule property. Respondent No.1 is defendant No.3 in the suit. She has filed a written statement denying the petitioner’s claim that he was granted patta by the Revenue officials, and has set up the plea that the Tahsildar, Tadikonda village and Mandal has granted patta in her favour. Respondent No.1 has filed the above mentioned I.A. under Order XVI Rule 1 r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the CPC”) to issue summons to the Tahsildar, Tadikonda village and Mandal, Guntur District, for giving evidence on her behalf regarding issuance of patta in her favour and also to prove that the Tahsildar has issued notice dated 13-5-2008 to both the parties. The petitioner/plaintiff, as respondent No.1, filed a counter-affidavit resisting the said application. The lower Court by a non-speaking order allowed the said I.A. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/plaintiff filed this revision petition. In the first place, it needs to be mentioned that the manner in which the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, has passed the order under the Revision is thoroughly unsatisfactory. When the petitioner/plaintiff filed a counter-affidavit and strongly resisted the application filed by respondent No.1/defendant No.3, it is the duty and obligation of the learned Junior Civil Judge to refer to the respective pleadings and record reasons for allowing the application. The order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge is bereft of any reasons whatsoever. Such an approach on the part of a Judicial Officer cannot be appreciated. On the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that respondent No.1 has not made out any case for summoning the Tahsildar, Tadikonda Mandal. The suit pertains to purely a dispute over immovable property between two private parties. Each of the parties is claiming right under purported pattas issued to them by the Tahsildar. As noted above, respondent No.1, while denying the plea of the petitioner/plaintiff that the latter was granted patta by the Tahsildar, had set up the plea that the Tahsildar has granted patta in her favour. Each of the parties is claiming right under purported pattas issued to them by the Tahsildar. As noted above, respondent No.1, while denying the plea of the petitioner/plaintiff that the latter was granted patta by the Tahsildar, had set up the plea that the Tahsildar has granted patta in her favour. It does not appear from the available record that respondent No.1 has filed any such patta certificate. If patta was granted in favour of respondent No.1, being an official document, the same is admissible in evidence even without examining the Tahsildar who is stated to have issued such patta. It is not the pleaded case of respondent No.1 that she has filed the patta certificate and that its genuineness is disputed by the petitioner/plaintiff. At least, in such a situation, perhaps, there may be some justification for respondent No.1 to make an application for summoning the Tahsildar to speak about the genuineness of the patta certificate granted in her favour. On her part, respondent No.1 has done precious little in substantiating her plea that the Tahsildar has indeed granted patta in her favour by filing the same and also any other revenue record in support of such plea. In my opinion, a private party, in order to substantiate his own plea, cannot seek to drag the Government officials to the Court as that would involve waste of precious time of the officials. Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code is not meant for helping litigants who fail to adduce proper and relevant evidence to prove their case and rely solely on the basis of the testimony of public servants. The predominant object of this provision is to enable the Court to summon any witness if it feels that the evidence of such person is necessary for proper and effectual adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit. It is not as if the lower Court, on application of its mind, has felt that the evidence of the Tahsildar is needed for adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit. In a suit involving disputes over immovable properties between two private parties, the Courts shall not ordinarily summon public servants to support the cause of one party unless the Court itself is of the opinion that the evidence of such public servant is required to adjudicate on the seriously disputed questions arising in the suit. In a suit involving disputes over immovable properties between two private parties, the Courts shall not ordinarily summon public servants to support the cause of one party unless the Court itself is of the opinion that the evidence of such public servant is required to adjudicate on the seriously disputed questions arising in the suit. For the above mentioned reasons, the order under the Revision cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set-aside. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. This order, however, would not preclude respondent No.1 from filing the patta certificate stated to have been issued in her favour and any other official record after obtaining the same from the authority concerned. As a sequel, interim order dated 10-4-2012 is vacated and CRPMP No.2271 of 2012 is disposed of as infructuous.