ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition by the unsuccessful defendants is directed against the orders of dismissal, dated 27.03.2019, of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Gudivada, made in I.A. No. 20 of 2019 in O.S. No. 164 of 2010 filed under Order XVI Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, requesting to issue witness summons to the Tahasildar and Panchayat Secretary of Nagapuram village, to attend before the Court along with record relating to R.S. No. 889/2 of Nagapuram village of Peddaparupudi Mandal and give evidence. 2. Heard Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants and Sri D. Satya Siva Darshan, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs. 3. The case of the defendants, as per the affidavit of the 3rd defendant filed in support of the present application, in brief, is this: The suit is filed seeking permanent injunction. The plaint schedule property was allotted to the defendants under a government scheme in the year 1982 and since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The revenue records since 1982 to 2010 along with the reports submitted by the Surveyor are necessary to establish the possession of the defendants. Therefore, the Tahasildar, who is the custodian of the records, is to be directed to attend before the Court and depose with reference to Ac. 11.90 cents in R.S. No. 889/2 of Nagapuram village. So also, it is further necessary to summon the Panchayat Secretary to produce agenda and resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat for the year 1981-83 for R.S. No. 889/2. 4. The documents sought to be produced by summoning the Tahasildar, Pedaparupudi, are (i) Proceedings of the Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna in R.C.S. 6/1032/81, dated 11.02.1981, (ii) Proceedings of the Project Director, DRDA, Krishna at Machilipatnam in RC No. 164/81/82, dated 02.09.1981; (iii) Cist Collection register for the R.S. No. 889/2 and (iv) Adangals for the period from 1982 to 2010 and the documents sought to be produced by summoning the Panchayat Secretary, Nagapuram are (i) agenda and resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat in year 1981-82 for issuance of property to petitioners in R.S. No. 889/2 and (ii) auctions conducted by the Panchayat in R.S. No. 889/2 till the date of allotment of property to the petitioners under the Government Scheme. 5. 5. The 1st respondent filed counter opposing the petition and alleging that the petitioners, having slept over all these years over their rights and without making any attempt to get the copies of the documents, which are public documents, filed the present petition without stating any reasons, seeking to summon the witnesses. The petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. On merits, the trial Court, dismissed the application of the petitioners while observing that nothing prevented the petitioners from obtaining certified copies of those documents or obtaining the same under the Right to Information Act, and therefore, summoning public officials to produce the documents which can be produced by obtaining certified copies, is unnecessary. 7. Aggrieved of the orders of the trial Court, the present revision petition is filed reiterating that consideration of the request of the petitioners is necessary to prove their ownership, possession and enjoyment of the property and that the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition. 8. Admittedly, all the aforesaid documents are public documents of which certified copies could be obtained and filed. Under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, every public officer like the Revenue officials having custody of public documents, which any person has right to inspect, shall give to that person on demand, a certified copy or copies of such document/s on payment of the necessary fee thereof. Further, under Section 77 of the said Act, certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be the copies. Under Rule 129 of the Civil Rules of Practice, in any application for production of records in the custody of Public Officer other than a Court, the applicant must necessarily make an averment in the affidavit filed in support of such application as to whether an application was made to the proper officer for grant of a certified copy or copies and the result of such application. In the case on hand, no such averment as required under the Civil Rules of Practice was made in the affidavit filed in support of the application. In the case on hand, no such averment as required under the Civil Rules of Practice was made in the affidavit filed in support of the application. No Court shall issue summons unless the Court considers the production of the original/s is necessary or is satisfied that the application for grant of a certified copy or copies has been duly made and has not been granted. In this case, the petitioners could not satisfy the Court in regard to the twin requirements under Rules 129 (2) and (3) of the Civil Rules of Practice. Thus, the law is well settled that the petitioners are obliged under law to first make an attempt to obtain certified copies and file such certified copies granted to them. Unless, a bona-fide attempt made in that regard failed to yield results, and unless the petitioners are able to satisfy the Court that the production of the original public document/s is necessary, the petitioners are not entitled to make a request to issue summons for production of the original public documents being sought to be relied upon by them. 9. In this regard, it is to be seen that the petitioners sought production of all the public documents, but no reason is stated as to why they could not procure their certified copies and file their evidence, instead of summoning the witnesses and seeking production of original documents relating to a very long period of about three decades. They have also not stated as to why the oral evidence of Tahasildar and Panchayat Secretary is needed in view of the fact that they are not the persons, who made entries in all such documents. Since these witnesses do not have personal knowledge of the contents of the documents sought to be summoned, in the absence of any reasons stated by the petitioners as to why their oral evidence is required, no purpose is seen to summon these official witnesses to come and depose evidence. Thus, the petitioners could not establish as to why original documents of these public documents are required to be produced instead of filing their certified copies and so also the reason for summoning the public officials to give evidence. Thus, the petitioners could not establish as to why original documents of these public documents are required to be produced instead of filing their certified copies and so also the reason for summoning the public officials to give evidence. Since the suit was filed in the year 2010, the petitioners could have secured certified copies very long back, if they had made an attempt, and could have produced them in evidence without any further delay. Instead, they filed this petition without explaining any reasons. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any valid and sufficient grounds, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs claimed. 10. At the threshold, learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition as no relief is sought to summon the witness to give evidence, whereas the very prayer in the petition is to issue summons to the witnesses to produce the documents and give evidence. 11. As can be seen from the impugned order, there is an observation made by the trial Court that the petitioners have not asked the relief of evidence of witnesses to be summoned. But, it is not the only ground for dismissing the petition. The trial Court further observed that the certified copies of the public documents which are sought to be summoned could be produced in evidence and therefore, summoning public officials to produce documents is not necessary. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that there is no merit in the contentions of the petitioners. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.