THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5649 of 2017
Defendant, in O.S.No.13 of 2011 on the file of the IV
Additional District Judge, Kurnool, is the petitioner in the
present revision, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
Heard Sri N.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for
the petitioner-defendant, and Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned
counsel for the respondent, apart from perusing the material
available before the Court.
In the present revision, challenge is to the order, dated
23.08.2017, passed by the said Court in I.A.No.252 of 2016.
The respondent herein instituted the above said suit for
damages, claiming a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- on the ground
that he was maliciously prosecuted on the complaint of the
defendant before the CBI Court, Hyderabad in C.C.No.24 of
2006. When the suit stood posted for further evidence of the
defendant, the present application-I.A.No.252 of 2016 came
to be filed, under the provisions of Order XIII Rule 10 CPC,
seeking to issue summons to one Sri Md.Jaffar, who was the
Investigating Officer in the above said criminal case, to
examine him as a witness with a direction to him to come
along with the C.D.file. The said application was contested by
the plaintiff-respondent herein by way of filing a counter. The
C.R.P.No.5649 of 2017
learned Additional District Judge, by way of the order under
challenge, dismissed the said application finding no merits in
the said application. Hence, the present revision.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
order impugned is erroneous and contrary to law. It is the
further submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner
herein sought for issuance of summons with an intention to
establish his contention that the plaintiff was prosecuted in
C.C.No.24 of 2006, after finding incriminating evidence
against him. It is the further submission of the learned
counsel that the Court below did not assign any reasons,
muchless valid reasons, to dismiss the application.
On the contrary, it is the submission of the learned
counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that there is no error in
the impugned order, as such, the same is not amenable for
any correction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the above background, now the issue that emerges
for consideration of this Court is:
Whether the impugned order passed by the
learned Additional District Judge warrants any
interference of this Court, under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, and whether the same
is sustainable and tenable?
In the affidavit, filed in support of the present
application-I.A.No.252 of 2006, the defendant-petitioner
herein stated that the C.D.file and investigation report are in
the CBI Court. The learned Judge, in the impugned order,
C.R.P.No.5649 of 2017
categorically recorded that the C.D.file and also the
deposition are all public documents and, if the petitioner
wishes to get the same, he can obtain certified copies of the
relevant documents. In this context, it may be appropriate to
refer to Rule 129 of the Civil Rules of Practice.
Rule 129 of the Civil Rules of Practice deals with the
production of records in the custody of a public officer other
than a Court. The present application is also not in
accordance with the provisions of Rule 129 of the Civil Rules
of Practice. Therefore, having regard to the reasons recorded
by the learned District Judge for dismissing the application,
this Court does not find any merit in the present revision.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
A.V.SESHA SAI, J
15th December, 2017