C.P.C. – WITNESS SUMMONS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS – 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 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. -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.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5649 of 2017

ORDER:

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

India.

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

2

AVSS,J

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,

3

AVSS,J

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

Tsy