1. Heard Sri B. Venkateswara Rao, the learned counsel representing Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Kuncheam Maheswara Rao, the learned counsel representing the first respondent. The other respondents i.e., respondents 2, 3 and 4 are shown as not necessary parties in the Civil Revision Petition.

2. This Court ordered notice before admission on 31.03.2009 and granted interim stay for a limited period, which was further extended for a further limited period.

3. Sri B. Venkateswara Rao, the learned counsel representing Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner-first defendant, would maintain that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, had not appreciated the respective stands taken by the parties in their pleadings properly while considering the application I.A.No.729 of 2008 in O.S.No.9 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, filed under Order XI Rule 12 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for direction to the plaintiff to produce the documents specified in the petition schedule. The learned counsel also would point out that the first respondent-company itself agreed to produce document Nos.1, 2 and 7 in the counter filed before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni and the learned Judge on the ground that document Nos.1 to 6 are only formal in nature, directed production of document No.7 only and this approach adopted by the learned Judge cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also would maintain that the admissibility or otherwise of these documents which may be produced, may have to be decided at an appropriate stage. The learned counsel also would maintain that even if the nature of the suit and the nature of the documents to be taken into consideration, all these documents are essential and at any rate, though document Nos.3 and 4 are to be considered as formal in nature, at least the other document Nos.1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 being highly essential, appropriate directions are to be given for production of these documents. The learned counsel also explained the scope and ambit of Order XI Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Code"), for the purpose of convenience.

4. Per contra, Sri Kuncheam Maheswara Rao, the learned counsel representing the first respondent-plaintiff-Shri Ram Chits Pvt Ltd., would maintain that it is no doubt true that in the counter, the company had expressed the willingness to produce document Nos.1, 2 and 7 but, however, the learned Judge after recording certain reasons came to the conclusion that since document Nos.1 to 6 are formal in nature and do not throw any light so as to decide the questions in controversy, directed the production of document No.7 only. The learned counsel also would maintain that the learned Judge recorded reasons and exercised the discretion properly while directing the production of document No.7 only and even otherwise in the light of the stand taken by the first respondent/plaintiff-company in the counter, the first respondent/plaintiff company even now is prepared to produce document Nos.1 and 2 also along with document No.7, but however, document Nos.1 and 2 may not throw much light on the questions in controversy. Hence, the learned counsel would maintain that in the light of the clear language employed in Order XI Rule 12 of the Code, and inasmuch the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni exercised the discretion after recording reasons in proper perspective, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Heard the learned counsel.

6. Perused the respective pleadings of the parties, the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application and also the stand taken in the counter filed by the first respondent/plaintiff.

7. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the first petitioner in I.A.No.729 of 2008 in O.S.No.9 of 2005 on the file of the Senior