1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the 1st defendant impugning the order passed on 01.06.2015 in I.A. No.252 of 2015 in O.S. No.50 of 2007 by the XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, on the application of the plaintiff.

2. I.A. No.252 of 2015 was filed by the plaintiff under Rule 129 of A.P Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 (which are made as per the power of the High Court under Sections 122 to 126 of C.P.C) (for short C.R.P), to summon the 2nd defendant-Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Industrial Estate, Patamata, Vijayawada for production of the documents i.e., (1) OTS proposals along with backup papers relating to the M/s.Lokesh Foundaries Pvt. Limited, (2) Internal file notings in the OTS proposals file of M/s.Lokesh Foundaries Pvt. Limited, (3) Correspondence between M/s.Lokesh Foundaries Pvt. Limited and SBI and (4) Correspondence between M/s.Varun Motors and SBI. The said petition was allowed by the trial Court on 01.06.2015 directing the 2nd defendant-bank to produce the said records and the revision is filed by the 1st defendant in impugning the same.

3. Heard both sides. The contentions raised in the grounds of revision mainly are that the trial Court should not have been allowed the application and it is not sustainable on its threshold.

4. It is brought to the notice of this Court by both sides that notice to produce any document given to one by the other of the parties to the suit under Order XII Rule 8 C.P.C as per the proforma in Form-12 in Appendix-C as prescribed in the CPC, for any non-production, remedy is to raw adverse inference from withholding of any best evidence, that too, on that notice to produce from any objections raised and Court passed any order by considering relevancy in directing the other party to produce the documents. Leave about, said notice to produce the documents is under the impression of an application answered and when sought for review certified by the trial Court within its inherent powers under Section 151 C.P.C which inheres in it to do so, and thereby the memo of notice to produce is for all purposes deemed pending before the lower Court.

5. Against the contention of the revision petitioner from Section 121 C.P.C of the Rule 129 C.R.P got the force of law as if a provision in the C.P.C to comply the requirements by any party before his seeking for production of documents, it is the reply by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 plaintiff that the application filed under Rule 129 C.R.P. is virtually an application under Order XVI Rule 1 or Rule 6 C.P.C as the case may be and thereby, for this court while sitting in revision against the impugned order, as there is no illegality or impropriety to the prejudice of the 1st defendant, there is nothing to interfere and prayed to dismiss the revision.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/ plaintiff placed reliance on the expression of the Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai vs Ramchander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675) particularly para Nos.38 and guidelines 4 & 7 which read as follows:

“4. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step into exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.

7. The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the above said two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency o