ORDER : Defendant No.1 in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 13.07.2022 in I.A.No.402 of 2022 in O.S.No.67 of 2013 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Nellore. 2. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.67 of 2013 to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 17.09.2010 executed by 3rd defendant in her favour and the registered settlement deed dated 07.07.2011 vide document No.8977 of 2011 and document No.9389 of 2011 dated 14.07.2011 executed by defendants 5 and 6 in favour of defendants 2 and 1 respectively are illegal and void and not binding on the plaintiff and for grant of consequential perpetual injunction. 3. The averments in the plaint, in brief, are that plaintiff purchased the schedule property from 3rd defendant under a registered sale deed 17.09.2010 and has been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property; that plaintiff and her husband intended to construct a residential building in the plaint schedule site; that defendants 1 and 2 are sons of defendants 5 and 6 constituted an unlawful assembly and indulging in grabbing the lands of others; defendants 1 and 2 in July, 2011 along with their men tried to trespass into the schedule property by removing the compound wall; that the plaintiff’s vendor, 3rd defendant noticed and informed the same to the plaintiff; that plaintiff, her husband along with neighbors protested the highhanded action; that plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.480 of 2011 against the defendants 1 and 2 and the same is pending; that defendants 1 and 2 and their parents defendants 5 and 6 jointly executed registered settlement deed dated 07.07.2011 in favour of 2nd defendant for an extent of 40 Ankanams 45 square feet, out of plaint schedule property and also executed another registered settlement deed dated 14.07.2011 in favour of 1st defendant for an extent of 40 Ankanams 45 square feet, out of plaint schedule property; that 3rd defendant got the property under registered exchange deed dated 28.03.2009 with Nellore Municipal Corporation, the 4th defendant in the suit; that plaintiff issued legal notice to 3rd defendant marking a copy to other defendants and filed the suit for the reliefs stated supra. 4. 4. 2nd Defendant filed written statement and contended interalia that plaint schedule property is shown as open space for public purpose in layout L.P.No.847 of 1992; that vendors of plaintiff, plaintiff and others created sham and nominal registered sale deeds bearing Nos.11654 of 2010 and 8376 of 2010 and got filed suit O.S.No.480 of 2011; that as per layout L.P.No.847 of 1992, Nagireddy Srinivasulu Reddy, Vajja Adinarayana and Magham Subrahmanyam are the joint owners for the above open space; that alleged exchange deed is invalid document, basing on which, no title is derived; that vendor of plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the open space of an extent of Ac.0.25 cents in S.Nos.1220, 1221 and 1222; that exchange deed dated 28.03.2009 itself is invalid and hence, the plaintiff could not get valid title under the registered sale deed dated 17.09.2010; that 2nd defendant is also one of the joint owners of layout along with defendants 1, 3, 5 and 6; that Magham Subrahmanyam along with defendants 5 and 6 executed registered settlement deeds dated 07.07.2011 and 14.07.2011 in favour of defendants 1 and 2 and eventually prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 5. Pending the suit, defendants 1, 2 and 6 filed I.A.No.402 of 2022 under Order XVI Rule 1 r/w Section 151 of CPC to summon the Director of Town and Country Planning (DTCP), Government of Andhra Pradesh and examine him to depose in respect of letter bearing No.12291/2011/V.Cell(RTI) dated 09.03.2022 and rejecting the proposal vide L.Dis.No.7244 of 2003 dated 05.03.2004 for exchanging the open space of Ac.0.25 cents in S.Nos.1220, 1221 and 1222 of Nellore Bit-II shown in Ex.B-1 DTCP plan bearing No.84 of 1992 with the site in S.No.2004 of Nellore Bit-II. 6. 6. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended interalia that layout was approved videNo.84 of 1992 and an extent of Ac.0.25 cents was left over as open space for public purpose; that Ex.A-2 exchange deed bearing No.2877 of 2009 dated 28.03.2009 and Ex.A-3 sale deed bearing No.11654 of 2010 dated 17.09.2010 are created and fabricated; that on application made by 2nd defendant, DTCP issued letter No.12291/2011/V.Cell(RTI) dated 09.03.2012 furnishing copy of letter bearing Lr.R.Dis.No.4856/2005 dated 06.08.2005 rejecting the proposal vide Lr.R.Dis.No.7244/2003 dated 05.03.2004 for exchanging the land in S.No.1120, 1221, 1222 shown as open space under DTCP layout plan No.84 of 1992, which includes plaint schedule property with the land in S.No.2004 of Nellore Bit-II on the ground that open space should not be used for any other purpose; that defendants 3 and 4 colluded together and fabricated Ex.A-2 registered exchange deed and thereafter, plaintiff and 3rd defendant colluded and created Ex.A-3 registered sale deed; that in order to prove the case summoning of DTCP is essential. 7. 1st Respondent/plaintiff filed counter and opposed the application. It was contended interalia that as per Ex.A-1 G.O.Rt.No.1822 dated 22.12.2008, Ex.A-2 registered exchange deed was executed in between defendants 3 and 4; that in order to drag the proceedings this application is filed and thus, prayed the Court to dismiss the application. 8. By order dated 13.07.2022, trial Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed. 9. Heard Sri C.Subodh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri T.D.Pani Kumar, learned counsel for 1st respondent. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that summoning of Director of Town and Country Planning and examine to him to depose in respect of letter bearing No.12291/2011/V.Cell(RTI) dated 09.03.2022 and rejecting the proposal vide L.Dis.No.7244 of 2003 dated 05.03.2004 is very much necessary in view of pleadings of respective parties. He would also submit that plaintiff and other defendants are denying the very existence of documents. He also would submit that even suggestions were given to witnesses about non existence of those letters and hence summoning of DTCP is necessary for adjudication of dispute. 11. Learned counsel for 1st respondent supported the order of the trial Court. 12. Now, the point for consideration is: 1) Whether the petitioners are entitled for summoning DTCP and to examine him regarding the proceedings? 11. Learned counsel for 1st respondent supported the order of the trial Court. 12. Now, the point for consideration is: 1) Whether the petitioners are entitled for summoning DTCP and to examine him regarding the proceedings? 2) Whether the Court below failed to exercise jurisdiction vested with it? 13. As narrated supra, suit is filed for declaration of title and also to declare registered settlement deeds executed by defendants 5 and 6 in favour of defendants 2 and 1 respectively as void and for grant of consequential permanent injunction. Plaintiff while asserting title to schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 17.09.2010 also prayed the Court to declare registered settlement deeds executed by defendants 5 and 6 in favour of defendants 2 and 1 respectively as void documents. 14. On behalf of 3rd respondent/Municipality, it was contended that the documents are already on record. A perusal of the order passed by trial Court would indicate that documents were already on record, however, the order is not clear as to whether the said documents are marked or not. But the evidence on behalf of plaintiff is completed and the suit is coming for evidence of 2nd defendant. 15. The case of 2nd defendant is that DTCP rejected the proposal of Nellore Municipal Corporation to exchange plot when proposal was sent to the authority. However, notwithstanding the said rejection, there was exchange deed and pursuant to the exchange deed, sale deed was executed in favour of plaintiff. The observation of the trial Court that the person sought to be summoned would not have any personal knowledge and only basing on the documents, he can speak, is not a ground to reject the application. 16. Once the documents are before the Court, though they are public documents, the concerned person needs to be examined to prove the authenticity of documents in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In fact suggestions were put to the witness about non existence of those documents. In view of complexity of the matter, summoning of DTCP to depose in respect of letter bearing No.12291/2011/V.Cell(RTI) dated 09.03.2022 and rejecting the proposal vide L.Dis.No.7244 of 2003 dated 05.03.2004 for exchanging the open space, in the considered opinion of this Court is essential. Once the document is produced before the Court, it enables the Court to deal with dispute judiciously. Once the document is produced before the Court, it enables the Court to deal with dispute judiciously. The observation of the trial Court that if at all the document is not filed, the petitioner can seek the same from 3rd defendant, may not arise for the reason that according to petitioner, plaintiff, 3rd defendant and other persons colluded and created these documents. In such event, it is in the interests of justice, documents should be summoned. 17. In Jai Singh and Ors. Vs. Municipal corporation of Delhi and Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 385 , while dealing with scope and ambit of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: 25. Undoubtedly, the High Court has the power to reach injustice whenever, wherever found. The scope and ambit of Article 227 of the Constitution of India had been discussed in the case of The Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. : (2001) 8 SCC 97 wherein it was observed as follows: The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to. 18. In view of expressions of the Hon’ble Apex Court supra, since the trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested with it, it warrants interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 19. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 13.07.2022 in I.A.No.403 of 2022 in O.S.No.67 of 2013 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Nellore is set aside. I.A.No.403 of 2022 is allowed. Trial court shall take necessary steps to summon the concerned person to depose to the files referred to supra, and complete the trial as expeditiously as possible. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.