V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Aggrieved by an order passed by the trial Court, at the instance of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance, directing the second defendant-bank to produce certain documents, the 1st defendant has come up with the present revision.

2. Heard Mr. S. Satyanarayana Prasad, learned senior counsel for the petitioner/1st defendant and Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/ plaintiff.

3. The 1st respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.50 of 2007 for specific performance of an agreement of sale purportedly entered into between the 1st respondent company and the petitioner herein on 21.06.2005. It was recorded in the said agreement of sale that the total sale consideration would be Rs. 2,50,00,000/-; that the 1st respondent-plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 50.00 lakhs in cash as advance at the time of execution of the agreement of sale; that the 1st respondent would also pay a sum of Rs. 31.00 lakhs to the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant-bank, by the end of June 2005 in a no lien account; and that since the petitioner had dues to be paid to the 2nd respondent Bank, for the settlement of which, a one time proposal was being worked out, the first respondent/plaintiff should pay the balance of sale consideration within 6 months from the date of the Bank issuing a letter in this regard.

4. The petitioner/1st defendant filed a written statement completely denying the execution of the agreement of sale. The denial was total without the winking of the eye. But nevertheless, the signatures found in the suit agreement of sale was admitted by the petitioner. In paragraph 32 of the written statement the petitioner claimed (i) that the suit agreement of sale is a fabricated document, (ii) that just for enabling the petitioner to negotiate with the Bank for the OTS proposal, the first respondent/plaintiff kept a deposit off Rs. 31 lakhs with the Bank on the understanding that the petitioner would repay the same with interest at 12% per annum; (ii) that at that time many signatures were obtained in blank stamp papers and those signed blank stamp papers had been made use of by the 1st respondent-plaintiff to fabricate an agreement of sale and to institute a suit for specific performance; and (iii) that the Managing Director of the petitioner company did not have the authority to enter into any agreement of sale. Curiously, it was the Managing Director of the petitioner who signed the written statement, calling the suit agreement of sale as fabricated and denying his own authority to execute an agreement of sale. Though I am tempted to comment upon such a defence taken by the petitioner, I refrain from doing so, since it may have a bearing upon the outcome of the suit.

5. In the light of such a stand taken by the petitioner/1st defendant in its written statement, the 1st respondent-plaintiff filed an application under Rule 129 (1) of the Civil Rules of Practice, in I.A.No.252 of 2015 praying for summoning from the Bank, the entire correspondence relating to One Time Settlement proposal between the petitioner and the Bank. The said application was allowed by the trial Court, by an order dated 1-6-2005, but the said order was set aside by a learned Judge of this Court in C.R.P.No.2192 of 2015 by an order dated 16-09-2016. But the learned Judge thought fit to remand the application back to the trial court for a fresh disposal, on the short ground that certain technical aspects had not been considered by the trial Court before allowing the application.

6. Therefore, the application was again taken up for hearing by the trial Court and by an order dated 05-07-2017, the trial Court once again allowed the application. Challenging the said order, the 1st defendant has come up with the above revision once again.

7. Assailing the order of the trial Court, it is contended by Mr. S. Satyanarayana Prasad, learned senior counsel for the petitioner:

(a) that the trial Court has virtually overruled t