CRP/6062/2012 of Mrs. Zohra Shameem, Vs Abdul Samad Khan, on 31 December 2012

ORDER:

This civil revision petition is failed against order dated 12.9.2012passed in I.A. No.525 of 2012 (I.A) in O.S.No.6393 of 2005 on the fileof the Court of VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

The petitioners herein are the respondents 1 to 4 in the I.A. andplaintiffs in the suit, the first respondent herein is the petitioner in theI.A., and second defendant in the suit whereas the respondents 2 to 4herein are the respondents 5 to 7 in the I.A. and defendants 1, 3 and 4respectively in the suit. For convenience sake, I refer the parties asthey arrayed in the I.A.

The I.A. was filed under Order XVI Rules 1 and 2 of the Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908 read with Rule 129 of the Civil Rules of Practiceseeking to summon the respondent No.5 i.e., the MunicipalCorporation of Hyderabad represented by its Commissioner (now theGreater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation) (hereafter, GHMC) toproduce entire record relating to the schedule property, i.e., sanctionplan, permit in respect of the schedule premises, notice issued underthe Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act (Act), personalinspection report made pursuant to direction given in W.P.No.7317 of2007 by this Court, and to depose evidence and for other reliefs.

The suit was filed by the respondents 1 to 4 for perpetualinjunction against the GHMC. Thereafter the petitioner was impleadedas the second defendant in the suit. Further, after complete recordingof the evidence of the respondents 1 to 4 (plaintiffs), the matter wasadjourned for adducing the evidence of the petitioners.

According to the petitioner, after the respondents purchased thesuit property in the year 2005, they demolished the structures andconstructed building with six floors therein illegally. The GHMC failedto adduce necessary evidence in the suit in that regard. He also filed awrit petition before the High Court against the GHMC in view of theillegal constructions made. Thus it became necessary to ascertainbefore the Court as to whether the construction was made illegally inthe schedule property by collecting necessary evidence. It is the claimof the GHMC that the petitioner cannot compel the other parties toproduce documents or to give evidence whereas the Court has todecide the matter on the basis of evidence recorded under Order XVIRules 1 and 2 CPC after giving list of witnesses to be examined whereas no such list was given in the suit. Hence he pleads that theI.A. is liable to be dismissed.

Conclusion

What is important is that the GHMC under an obligation tomaintain relevant records including the records pertaining to grantingnecessary permission for the construction of the buildings etc., withinits jurisdictional area. Only on the basis of relevant record maintainedby the office with regards to the grant of necessary sanction the sameaspect can be determined. It cannot be ascertained by adducing anyamount of other evidence before the Court below. In fact the questionof making illegal construction is in issue in a suit. Order XVI Rule 6CPC permits directing any person to produce a document which isrelevant for any issue in the suit and which is necessary to beestablished or relied upon in that context. If such person does notcause production of such document even though he is in possession,an adverse inference can be drawn against him with regards to suchrelevant issue. There is no legal bar to examine such witness. Therefore the plea taken by the GHMC that it cannot be asked toproduce the record, in the circumstances of the case, is not tenable. Inthe case of public records there would not be any question of non-production of such records when they are necessary. There are nomerits in the petition.

In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed.Miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.

___________________________________

(G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

December 31, 2012.YS