M/S. Padma Srinivasa Mills Stores vs. Settikamsetty Satya Bhaskara Srinivas Prasad

Held

The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition. The Court held that the application to summon the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer was not maintainable. It reasoned that under Order XVI Rule 14 of the CPC, the Court, on its own motion, can summon a person to give evidence or produce documents in their possession if it deems it necessary. However, a litigant cannot file an application seeking a direction for the Court to summon a specific officer and produce records. The Court noted that the APGST registration certificate, if not in the petitioner's possession, could be obtained as a certified copy and produced. The trial court's dismissal was upheld, as the application was not in line with the procedural provisions for summoning witnesses by the court itself.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. Padma Srinivasa Mills Stores and its partners, are defendants in a suit for eviction filed by the respondents/plaintiffs. The respondents claim to be landlords who leased a property to the petitioners' firm in 2002. The petitioners contend they have been in possession as tenants since 1984. To prove their long-standing tenancy, the petitioners filed an application (I.A.No.1351 of 2018) seeking to summon the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer to produce records pertaining to the firm's registration as a dealer under the APGST Act. The trial court dismissed this application, stating it was filed late and the petitioners failed to explain the relevance of the summoned witness's evidence. The petitioners then filed a Civil Revision Petition before the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petitioners' application to summon the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer to produce the firm's APGST registration records, thereby hindering their ability to prove their tenancy since 1984? (Question of law and fact, turning on Order XVI Rule 14 and Section 157 of the CPC). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the APGST/VAT/GST registration certificate would be relevant to establish their continuous business operation and tenancy from 1984, predating the suit's claimed lease commencement. They contended that such a document, if not in their possession, could be obtained via certified copy and its production would support their case. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that the application was filed to drag proceedings and that the petitioners failed to specify how the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer's evidence would improve their case. They also contended that under Order XVI Rule 14 of the CPC, summoning a witness is the Court's discretion and not typically initiated by a party's application.