Telangana High Court
Satyala Pullaiah, vs Satyala Tirupaiah, on 30 June, 2025
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1013 OF 2025
ORDER :
This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners to set
aside the order and decree in I.A. No.13 of 2025 in O.S. No.141 of
2015 dated 05.03.2025 passed by the learned II Additional District
Judge at Khammam, (for short 'Trial Court').
2. Heard Mr. R. Dheeraj Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioners, and Mr. Kowthuru Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12, and perused the material on
record.
3. The petitioners are plaintiff Nos.6 and 7, respondent Nos.1
to 13 are defendant Nos.1 to 13 and respondent Nos.14 to 19 are
plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 and 8 in O.S. No.141 of 2015 pending on the
file of the Trial Court. The suit in O.S. No.141 of 2015 was filed
by the plaintiffs seeking partition and separate possession of the
suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have filed I.A. No.13 of 2025
to issue summons to the Tahsildar, Khammam Urban Mandal, who
has issued Memo vide RCNo.A/07/2025 dated 31.01.2025, to
examine him as a Court witness for deposing his evidence and for
identifying the said Memo.
4. It is submitted that the suit is coming up for the rebuttal
evidence and the plaintiffs sought for certified copies of revenue
records from the Tahsildar under the Right to Information Act
2005. The Tahsildar, Khammam Urban Mandal, has issued a
Memo vide RCNo.A/07/2025 dated 31.01.2025 stating that there is
no information available in his office regarding the certified copies.
That, if copies have been issued, it would disprove the case of the
defendants that partition had taken place and the father of the
plaintiffs, late Mr. Satyala Ananthaiah, had sold the lands which
allegedly fell to his share during the partition. The memo issued by
the Tahsildar, Khammam Urban Mandal, establishes the fact that
the contentions of the defendants regarding partition and sale are
false and baseless, and it is necessary to get the memo marked as
Exhibit (in A series) through the official who has issued the same.
5. In the counter affidavit filed by the defendants in I.A. No.13
of 2025, it is contended that the Memo dated 31.01.2025 is not
relevant for the just disposal of the case. The plaintiffs have filed
the application to drag the case, as they lost their confidence to win
the case. The suit was filed in the year 2015 and now in 2025, the
instant application is filed. The RTI information vide Memo dated
31.01.2025 was issued to their counsel, Mr. G. Moses Christopher,
Advocate, and not to the plaintiffs.
6. Having considered the contentions of the plaintiffs and the
defendants, the Trial Court has dismissed the I.A. No.13 of 2025 in
O.S. No.141 of 2015 by the order dated 05.03.2025. The findings
of the Trial Court read as under:
"8. The entire process of obtaining information under
RTI Act is only by legal counsel not by the petitioner
himself. This intermediary handling weakens the
evidentiary value of the RTI response because it is not
directly connected to the party on record. Summoning a
public officer solely to confirm the memo obtained through
counsel rather than the party himself is irregular. The
revenue records are already available in the suit
proceedings and admitting the same by Tahsildar, at this
juncture for a limited purpose and identifying a Memo
which does not directly decide title or partition is irrelevant
and unnecessary.
9. The Memo itself can be marked and proved
through the party himself and there is no compelling
necessity to summon the Tahsildar when the dispute is
pertaining to partition which can be established through
other direct evidence. This Court is of the view that
allowing this petition would open the doors of further
unnecessary delays transforming the suit into
administrative practice at the Tahsildar Office who is
wholly irrelevant to the adjudication of partition and
possession which are the core issues of the suit.
10. In view of the unexplained delay, weak evidentiary
value of the memo obtained indirectly, availability of
existing revenue records, lack of necessities to summon the
Tahsildar and prolonging the proceedings unnecessarily,
this court finds no merit in the present petition. And as
such, this Court is not inclined to allow this petition and
liable to be dismissed. The point is answered accordingly."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in Chekka Krishna Prasad v. Kotha
Appa Rao 1 and submitted that the relevancy of the documents has
to be considered by the Court during the hearing of the case and
not at the time of summoning of witnesses.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and
12 submitted that there is inordinate delay on the part of the
petitioners - plaintiff Nos.6 and 7 in filing the application and
1998 (1) ALD 680
summoning the Tahsildar for mere marking of the documents
would not serve any purpose. The Memo does not in any way
support the case of the petitioners and not relevant for the purpose
of the suit.
9. In the opinion of this Court, the Memo issued by the
Tahsildar, Khammam Urban Mandal, can be marked by the
petitioners as well. It is a public document and there is no
necessity to summon the Tahsildar to mark the document. The
claims of the parties have to be established through direct and
substantial evidence and not through memos. The Memo of
Tahsildar cannot have precedence over the documents/revenue
records filed by the parties. The judgment in Chekka Krishna
Prasad's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case, as
the documents summoned in the said case are the admission
register and Transfer Certificate from the college for determining
the age to know whether the executant was minor as on the date of
sale deed. In the instant case, the documents sought to be marked
is a Memo and the judgment of the Chekka Krishna Prasad's
case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case. This Court
does not find any plausible reason to interfere with the order of the
Trial Court in I.A. No.13 of 2025 in O.S. No.141 of 2015 dated
05.03.2025, and the revision is devoid of merits.
9. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending in this civil revision stand closed.
______________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
June 30, 2025
MS
