1. These two revision petitions are filed against the common order dated 05.08.2025 of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram in I.A.Nos.585 of 2025 and 586 of 2025 in O.S.No.16 of 2015.

2. The petitioners / plaintiffs in the said suit filed I.A.No.585 of 2025 under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) seeking to reopen I.A.No.392 of 2025 for fulfilling the orders of the Court. They filed I.A.No.586 of 2025 under Order 16 Rule 10 (3) and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for issuance of arrest warrant either with or without bail to the Tahsildar, Thondangi Mandal for non-compliance of the order dated 28.04.2025.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners / plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the respondents / defendants.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that initially, the respondents herein filed I.A.No.215 of 2025 under Order XVI Rule 6 r/w Section 151 of CPC to issue summons to the Tahsildar, Thondangi Mandal to produce the records of rights i.e., 1-B, ROR to establish the fact that the plaint schedule property is not situated in Tammayyapeta Village and after considering the submissions on both sides, the said I.A., was allowed by an Order dated 10.03.2025 and summons were issued to the Tahsildar, Thondangi for causing production of the revenue records pertaining to Survey Nos.373 B/3, 376 B/1, 376 B/2 and 384 B/1 and all revenue records pertaining to the survey numbers 373, 376 and 384 i.e., Settlement Register, 10(1) account and ROR Register on payment of process. He submits that subsequently, the petitioners / plaintiffs filed I.A.No.392 of 2025 under Order XVI Rule 7 and 14 r/w Section 151 of CPC to summon the Tahsildar, Thondangi Mandal for production of original records i.e., Record of Rights (ROR), Original Adangal Book, Original Settlement Register and Field Measurement Book (FMB) pertaining to Survey Nos.373, 376, 378 and 384 of Bendapudi Village and to give evidence as Court witness. He submits that on contest, the said I.A., was allowed by an Order dated 28.04.2025 and summons were issued to the Tahsildar, Thondangi for production of ROR Register, Original Settlement Register and FMB pertaining to Survey Nos.373, 376, 378 and 384 of Bendapudi Village and to give evidence on payment of process. He submits that the Tahsildar, Thondangi intentionally dragged on the matter without complying with the said orders and did not attend before the Court nor has offered any explanation for his non-appearance.

5. The learned counsel further submits that as the Tahsildhar was continuously not attending the proceedings, the petition was closed and in those circumstances, the petitioners filed the above referred I.As., i.e., 585 and 586 of 2025 seeking 1) to reopen the I.A.No.392 of 2025 for fulfilling / complying with the orders of the Court and 2) to issue warrant of arrest either with or without bail to the Tahsildhar, Thondangi Mandal for non-compliance of the order of the Court dated 28.04.2025 in I.A.No.392 of 2025 as contemplated under Order XVI Rule 10 (3) and Section 151 of CPC. He submits that the learned Civil Judge without considering the matter in the correct perspective, went wrong in dismissing both the I.As. Learned counsel submits that the said Tahsildhar wantonly withheld the material records and did not produce the documents as per the earlier orders passed in I.A.No.392 of 2025, that he also failed to attend the Court proceedings and no reasons are forthcoming for his non-appearance before the Court. He argues that the submission of only some of the records / documents by the Tahsildhar through the Village Revenue Officer and not making himself available for adducing evidence cannot be appreciated and that the Tahsildhar, Thondangi Mandal is liable for the consequences as provided under Order XVI Rule 10 (3) of CPC. He submits that the learned Civil Judge, without considering the matter with reference to the said provision of Law and by erroneous exercise of the discretionary power dismissed the applications on the premise that the suit is old and the documents already filed by the VRO can be taken into consideration at the time of pronouncing the judgment. He submits that virtually the learned Trial Court allowed its earlier order dated 28.04.2025 to whittle down, instead of ensuring its implementation. While submitting that the orders under challenge are unsustainable and placing reliance on the decisions reported in Mirza Zareena Begum v. Sanka Subba Rao & Others(2022(5) ALD 511 (AP)) and Nagireddy Ravindra Reddy v. Bujjivemula Lakshmi Devi(AIR Online 2022 AP 607), the learned counsel urges for allowing the Revision Petitions.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents made submissions to sustain the orders under challenge. He submits that on the earlier occasion entertaining the applications, the learned Trial Court issued summons to the Tahsildhar, Thondangi and in response to the same the available records were produced and in fact, it is for the petitioners / plaintiffs to prove their case by filing the relevant documentary evidence and having failed to establish their rights, they filed applications in question and the same are rightly dismissed by the learned Trial Court. He submits that there are no merits in the present Revision Petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed.

7. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is Whether the impugned orders are not sustainable and the same are liable to be set aside, in the facts and circumstances of the case?

8. Before dealing with the point for consideration, it may be appropriate to refer to the relevant provision of Law, invoking which, one of the applications in question were filed.

                  Order XVI deals with summoning and attendance of witnesses. Order XVI Rule 10 deals with the procedure, where witnesses fail to comply with summons and the same is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

                  (1) Where a person to whom a summons has been issued either to attend to give evidence or to produce a document, fails to attend or to produce the document in compliance with such summons, the Court-

                  (a) shall, if the certificate of the serving officer has not been verified by affidavit, or if service of the summons has been effected by a party or his agent, or

                  (b) may, if the certificate of the serving officer has been so verified, examine on oath the serving officer or the party or his agent, as the case may be, who has effected service, or cause him to be so examined by any Court, touching the service or non-service of the summons.

                  (2) Where the Court sees reason to believe that such evidence or production is material, and that such person has, without lawful excuse, failed to attend or to produce the document in compliance with such summons or has intentionally avoided service, it may issue a proclamation requiring him to attend to give evidence or to produce the document at a time and place to be named therein; and a copy of such proclamation shall be affixed on the outer door or other conspicuous part of the house in which he ordinarily resides.

                  (3) In view of or at the time of issuing such proclamation, or at any time afterwards, the Court may, in its discretion, issue a warrant, either with or without bail, for the arrest of such person, and may make an order for the attachment of his property to such amount as it thinks fit, not exceeding the amount of the costs of attachment and of any fine which may be imposed under rule 12:

                  Provided that no Court of Small Causes shall make an order for the attachment of immoveable property.

9. As seen from Rule 10 (2) and (3), on receipt of summons, the person to whom, the same were issued shall attend before the Court to give evidence or produce the documents and on his failure to appear without lawful execuse, the Court may issue in its discretion a bailable or non-bailable warrant for arrest of such person / witness or order attachment of his property etc;

10. In the present case, it is not in dispute that earlier the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.392 of 2015 and the same was allowed by an order dated 28.04.2025 which reads as follows:

                  “ Issue summons to the Tahsildhar, Thondangi, for cause production of ROR register, Original settlement register and FMB pertaining to the survey numbers 373, 376, 378 and 384 of Bendapudi Village of Thondangi Mandal to give evidence on payment of process.”

11. The observation of the learned Trial Court that the said application was filed by the defendant is contrary to record. Be that as it may. As seen from the impugned order, after service of witness summons, the V.R.O., who attended the Court instead of the Tahsildar, Thondangi, orally represented that the documents are not available and thereafter the matter was adjourned for production of documents on three times and ultimately the witness was absent on 03.07.2025 and in such circumstances, the learned Trial Court closed the evidence on the premise that the suit is an old matter. Merely because it is an old matter, the Court should not have closed the evidence, more particularly in the absence of the production of the documents in terms of its earlier orders in I.A.No.392 of 2025. No doubt, the learned Trial Court has the discretion to pass appropriate orders under Order XVI, Rule 10 (3) of CPC. But in the present case, the said discretion in the considered opinion of this Court was not exercised after examining the above extracted provision of Law.

12. A learned Judge of this Court in Mirza Zareena Begum’s case had analyzed the relevant provisions under Order XVI Rule 10 of CPC and the relevant paras reads as follows:

                  7. To understand Order XVI Rule 10 of the Code, in simple form, it can be stated that on receipt of summons, when a witness fails to appear ‘without lawful excuse’, subject to the procedural rider in Rule 10(1), a Court can issue (1) a proclamation requiring him to appear as prescribed under Rule 10(2) or; (2) without or while or at any time after issuing such proclamation, (i) issue a bailable or non-bailable warrant for arrest of such witness or (ii) order attachment of his property.

                  7(A) Before resorting to such stringent measure(s), a procedural safeguard is provided under Rule 10(1) to protect the interest of witness against such impending hardship, by requiring the Court to examine on oath (i) the service officer or (ii) the party or (iii) his agent, as the case may be, touching the service or non-service of the summons -

                  (i) Mandatorily, (a) if the certificate of the serving officer has not been verified by affidavit, or (b) if service of the summons has been effected by a party, or

                  (c) if service of the summons has been effected by an agent of a party; or

                  (ii) Discretionarily (may or may not), if the certificate of the serving officer has been so verified.

                  7(B) In other words, if certificate of serving officer has been verified by affidavit, the serving officer may or may not be examined, but, if certificate of the serving officer has not been verified by affidavit, the serving officer shall be examined. Whereas, in case, service of summons has been effected by party or his agent, it is mandatory to examine such party or his agent, as the case may be.

13. Further, as noted above, except receiving some documents, it appears that there was no examination of the concerned witness who produced the documents before the Court and the observation of the learned Trial Court that the documents already filed by V.R.O., can be taken into consideration at the time of pronouncing the judgment is not tenable.

14. In Nagireddy Ravindra Reddy’s case, a learned Judge of this Court inter alia held that once the documents are produced before the Court, though they are public documents, the concerned person needs to be examined to prove the authenticity of the documents.

15. In Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.,( (2001) 8 SCC 97) the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia held that the exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner.

16. In the present case as noted earlier, the learned Trial Court has not considered the matter with reference to the above extracted provision of Law in the correct perspective and it is also under the misconception that I.A.No.215 of 2025 is filed by the petitioners / plaintiffs and the defendants filed I.A.No.392 of 2025. That apart, the conclusions arrived at by the learned Trial Court for dismissing the application on the premise that the suit is an old matter is not tenable.

17. For the aforegoing reasons, the Revision Petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the learned Trial Court shall pass orders afresh in the light of the provisions of Law extracted above and the decisions referred to supra. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.