Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
R.Madava Raju vs C.Sidda Raju on 18 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1006 OF 2024
Between:
R. Madava Raju, S/o. R. Subbaraghava Raju,
Aged about 66 Years, R/o.P.V.Puram Village,
Satyavedu Mandal, Tirupathi District. …. PetitionerVersus
C. Sidda Raju, S/o.Late C. Narayana
Raju, Aged about 66 Years,
R/o.Chamarthi Kandriga Village,
P.V.Puram Panchayat,
Satyavedu Mandal, Tirupati District
and 3 others. …. RespondentsDATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 18.07.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the order? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of order may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
2. Whether Her Lordship wishes to see
The fair copy of the Order? Yes/No
__________________________
JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
2
JS,J
CRP No.1006/2024
* HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1006 OF 2024
% 18.07.2025
# Between:
R. Madava Raju, S/o. R. Subbaraghava Raju,
Aged about 66 Years, R/o.P.V.Puram Village,
Satyavedu Mandal, Tirupathi District. …. PetitionerVersus
C. Sidda Raju, S/o.Late C. Narayana
Raju, Aged about 66 Years,
R/o.Chamarthi Kandriga Village,
P.V.Puram Panchayat,
Satyavedu Mandal,
Tirupati District and 3 others. …. Respondents! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P. Gangarami Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondents : Sri S. Varada Rajulu
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2005 (2) ALD 115
2. 1988 (1) ALT 279 (S.B)
3. (1999) 6 ALD 789
This Court made the following:
3
JS,J
CRP No.1006/2024APHC010208672024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3459]
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVEPRESENT
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1006 OF 2024
Between:
1. R.MADAVA RAJU, S/O R.SUBBARAGHAVA RAJU, AGED
ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O P.V.PURAM VILLAGE, SATYAVEDU
MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER
AND
1. C SIDDA RAJU, S/O LATE C.NARAYANA RAJU, AGED
ABOUT 66 YEARS.
2. C DILLI PRATHAP, S/O C.SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 37
YEARS.
3. C SRILALTHA, D/O C.SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 41
YEARS.
(ALL ARE R/O CHAMARTHI KANDRIGA VILLAGE,
P.V.PURAM PANCHAYAT, SATYAVEDU MANDAL,
TIRUPATHI DISTRICT).
…RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying
that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High
Court may be pleased to set-aside the Order and Decree passed in
I.A.No.561 of 2022 in O.S.No.91 of 2013 dated 06.03.2024 on the
file of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Srikalahasti.
4
JS,J
CRP No.1006/2024
IA No.1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to stay the Order and Decree
passed in I.A.No.561 of 2022 in O.S.No.91 of 2013 dated
06.03.2024 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Srikalahasti, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition.
IA No.2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated
19.06.2024 in CRP No.1006 of 2024.
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Gangarami Reddy
Counsel for the respondents : Sri S. Varada Rajulu
The Court made the following ORDER:
5
JS,J
CRP No.1006/2024This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by
the order, dated 06.03.2024, passed in I.A. No.561 of 2022 in O.S.
No.91 of 2013 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Srikalahasti (for short, „the trial Court‟), wherein the trial Court
allowed the Interlocutory Application, filed under Order XVI, Rules 1
and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, „the CPC‟) to
summon the Tahsildar, Sathyavedu Mandal, and C.E.O.,
Sathyavedu Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (PACS),
Rachapalem, Sathyavedu Mandal.
2. Heard Sri P. Gangarami Reddy, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner, and Sri S. Varadarajulu, learned counsel for
respondents, and perused the record.
3. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are
defendants before the trial Court in O.S. No.91 of 2013. The suit is
filed for specific performance, directing the defendant No.1 to come
and execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in
terms of agreement of sale letter, dated 30.04.1985, to an extent of
Ac.2.85 cents in S.No.86 of P.V.Puram village accounts,
6JS,J
CRP No.1006/2024Sathyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District and to declare that the alleged
gift settlement deed, dated 06.09.2011, executed by defendant
Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 as null and void.
4. In the trial Court, issues were framed in 2015. PWs.1 to PW.5
were examined on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff, DWs.1 to DW.3
were examined on behalf of the defendants. On 26.12.2019 the trial
Court closed the evidence. At that stage, the
respondents/defendants filed the present Application under Order
XVI, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking to issue
summons to the Tahsildar of Sathyavedu Mandal and the C.E.O. of
Sathyavedu PACS, Rachapalem, Sathyavedu Mandal, to produce
the Fair Adangal, 1-B Namuna, RoR, and Adangal Pahani issued by
the Tahsildar, relating to the lands in Sy.No.86 covering an area of
Ac.3.60 cents in P.V. Puram village, as well as the Mortgage Deed,
dated 21.01.1999, which was mortgaged in favour of PACS by late
C. Narayana Raju, son of C. Sidda Raju (late), from Chamarthi
Kandriga village, in order to adduce evidence based on those
documents.
7
JS,J
CRP No.1006/2024
5. After hearing both parties, the trial Court has issued summons
to the proposed witnesses, i.e., the Tahsildar, Sathyavedu Mandal
and C.E.O., Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society, for the
production of records, since both parties are claiming property under
a sale letter and a registered gift settlement deed.
6. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner herein filed
the present Revision.
7. Sri P. Gangarami Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner/plaintiff, contends that Rule 129 of the Andhra Pradesh
Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1980 require that an
Application under this Rule must specify the relevance of the
documents or document before summoning the witnesses. Since all
the relevant documents have already been filed before the trial
Court, summoning the officers to testify is unwarranted and lacks
proper justification. Consequently, the trial Court erred in allowing
the Application, which has resulted in this Civil Revision Petition.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/defendants, contends that the order passed by the trial
Court does not suffer from any manifest procedural impropriety or
8
JS,J
CRP No.1006/2024
palpable perversity. The Court, under Order XVI Rule 14 of
CPC, has the power to summon any witness on its own accord. The
trial Court allowed the Application by passing a reasoned order. The
question of admissibility and relevancy of the documents in
evidence will be decided at the appropriate stage. He, therefore,
asserts that summoning the Government Officials, along with the
necessary documents, is essential to prove their case. Learned
counsel, in support of his contention, relied on a decision of this
Court in Sidda Lingamma v. Sidda Lingamma and Others1,
wherein it was held that when the original document is unavailable
for verification and when it is difficult to ascertain whether such
document has been altered, in such circumstances, certified copy of
the original serves no purpose and directed the trial Court to issue
summons to the MRO for production of 1-B Register.
9. It is relevant to extract Order XVI Rule 14 of CPC, which reads
as follows:
“14. Order – XVI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure
reads as follows:
1
2005 (2) ALD 115
9JS,J
CRP No.1006/2024“Court may of its own accord summon as witnesses
strangers to suit–
Subject to the provisions of this Code as to attendance and
appearance and to any law for the time being in force, where
the court at any time thinks it necessary to examine any
person, including a party to the suit, and not called as a
witness by a party to the suit, the court may, of its own
motion, cause such person to be summoned as a witness to
give evidence or to produce any document in his possession,
on a day to be appointed, and may examine him as a witness
or require him to produce such document.”
10. From the above, it is evident that under Order XVI Rule 14 of
CPC, a party can seek to summon any person as a witness;
however, it is for the Court to determine whether the examination of
such witness is necessary.
11. The suit instituted by the plaintiff for specific performance was
based on a sale letter, dated 30.04.1985. The respondents have
submitted 1-B Namuna, RoR, Adangal, Pahanis, and Patta
Passbooks in the name of late C. Narayana Raju. The respondents
have filed an Application under Order XVI, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC to
summon the Tahsildar and CEO of PACS, Sathyavedu Mandal, who
are in possession of the original records. The 1st respondent (D-1)
10
JS,J
CRP No.1006/2024
claims that the property was mortgaged by his father to Sathyavedu
Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society on 21.01.1999. The
respondents contended that summoning these witnesses to give
evidence would facilitate an effective adjudication of the dispute.
12. This Court does not find any infirmity in the reasoning adopted
by the trial Court in passing the impugned order.
13. In a similar situation, the High Court of Judicature at
Hyderabad in P. Subrahmanyam Chetty v. Hatari Ellappa
Reddy2, ruled that neither party is prohibited from filing an
Application to summon a person as a witness. When such an
Application is made, the Court has the authority, under Order XVI,
Rule 14 of the CPC, to summon such individual to testify or to
produce any relevant documents in their possession.
14. In another decision of the High Court of Judicature at
Hyderabad in National Insurance Company Limited and others
v. Susru Sea Foods, Visakhapatnam3, it was held as under at
Para No.15:
2
1988 (1) ALT 279 (S.B)
3
(1999) 6 ALD 789
11JS,J
CRP No.1006/2024
“15. That a plain reading of the said provision makes it
abundantly clear that a Civil Court is conferred with jurisdiction
and power to examine any person including a party to the suit
and not called as a witness by a party to the suit. This can be
done on its own motion, which means and includes that its
jurisdiction can even be set in motion by any of the parties to
the suit. The words “to examine any person, including a party
to the suit” has been substituted for “to examine any person
other than a party to the suit” by Act 104 of 1976, with effect
from 01-02-1977. What was otherwise implicit is now made
explicit that even a party to the suit and not called as a witness
by a party to the suit can be called by the Court as a witness
to give evidence, or to produce any document in his
possession.” .” (Emphasis supplied)
15. Based on the decisions above, if an Application is filed
under Order XVI, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, the Court can exercise its
discretionary power to summon a witness for a thorough
adjudication. However, in the present case, the
respondents/defendants have not shown due diligence in filing the
present Application after closure of evidence. Since the authenticity
of the documents is in question, the Court, in the interest of justice,
can summon the witnesses. To resolve the dispute in an effective
manner, the Court can summon government officials. However, this
power must be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner.
12
JS,J
CRP No.1006/2024
Since the parties claim title to the suit land, summoning the
concerned officers in order to resolve the issue once and for all.
16. The impugned order, dated 06.03.2024, passed by the trial
Court is not vitiated by any illegality and does not suffer from any
error, much less jurisdictional error, requiring any interference by
this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
17. Accordingly, with the above observation, the present Civil
Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
Date:18.07.2025
DSH