JUDGMENT 1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 02.07.2009 in I.A.No.1423 of 2008 in O.S.No.712 of 2006, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif of Salem, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners herein seeking for summoning of two documents from the defendants 3 and 4 was rejected. 2. The respondents 3 and 4 are represented through their counsel. Though notice was served on the first respondent, he has not chosen to appear before this Court. Therefore, his name is printed in the cause list. The petitioner has already given up the second respondent. 3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs who filed the above said suit seeking for the relief of declaration and for permanent injunction. The petitioners during the pendency of the suit filed the interim application under Order 16 Rule 1(i) to 4 of the Civil Procedure Code to summon the defendants No.4 and 5 for production of two documents, namely, sanction order for layout of the Kanchi Nagar plots, Seelanaickenpatty, Salem and layout plan approved for the formation of Kanchi Nagar, Seelanaickenpatty, Salem. 4. According to the petitioners, the sanction order and plan are necessary and relevant documents for the purpose of trial of the case and therefore, they filed the application for summoning those documents from defendant nos.4 and 5 who are the respondents 3 and 4 herein. The said application was resisted by the first defendant/ first petitioner herein. 5. The court below rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioners had not taken any steps to obtain those documents from the 4th and 5th defendants by making application and only when the said application was rejected and after obtaining an order in writing rejecting the request of the petitioners seeking for furnishing of those documents, the petitioners could approach the court below by filing the present application. In the absence of any such attempt on the part of the petitioners, the present application filed directly cannot be entertained. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4. 7. The application filed by the petitioners is only for summoning of those two documents which are admittedly in the possession of the defendants 4 and 5/ respondents 3 and 4 herein. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4. 7. The application filed by the petitioners is only for summoning of those two documents which are admittedly in the possession of the defendants 4 and 5/ respondents 3 and 4 herein. When the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction, it is for them to prove their case by letting in all possible evidence in support of their case either orally or through documents. Therefore, for such purpose they want to summon the documents, namely, sanction order for layout of the Kanchi Nagar plots, Seelanaickenpatty, Salem and layout plan approved for the formation of Kanchi Nagar, Seelanaickenpatty, Salem which are in the possession of the defendants 4 and 5/ respondents 3 and 4 herein. It is not necessary for them to approach the defendants 4 and 5/ respondents 3 and 4 herein separately and to seek for copies of those documents, before filing the present application before the court below. 8. When the parties from whom those documents are sought to be marked are already present before the court as parties to the suit as defendants 4 and 5, there cannot be any impediment for summoning those documents by the court below at the instance of the petitioners. In fact, in order to render proper adjudication of the matter between the parties, all the necessary documents in the hands of the parties have to be produced before the court and then only the court will be in a position to come to a proper conclusion. 9. The reasoning of the court below in rejecting the application is not justifiable. There need not be any prior rejection by the defendants 4 and 5/ respondents 3 and 4 herein for issuing those documents when they are already parties to the proceedings. 10. Therefore, I find every justification on the part of the petitioner in making out an application for summoning those documents. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 is also not having any serious objection in allowing the application. 12. Considering the related facts and circumstances of the case, I allow this Civil Revision Petition. 10. Therefore, I find every justification on the part of the petitioner in making out an application for summoning those documents. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 is also not having any serious objection in allowing the application. 12. Considering the related facts and circumstances of the case, I allow this Civil Revision Petition. Therefore, the order dated 02.07.2009 in I.A.No.1423 of 2008 in O.S.No.712 of 2006 of the court below is set aside and the I.A. filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.1423 of 2008 is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.