Application to dismiss based on non-compliance requires prior compliance orders; without such, dismissal is premature and not maintainable.

ORDER:

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.

This Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 30.10.2023 in IA.No.250 of 2022 in OS.No.98 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

2. Heard Sri T.Sharath, learned counsel for revision petitioner, and Sri K.R.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for respondent.

3. The petitioner is defendant and the respondent is plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. Concisely stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of oral Agreement of sale dated 05.07.2021 and also for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property against the defendant. In the plaint, it was averred that the defendant is the owner of suit schedule property; that one Alluri Anuradha is the General Power of Attorney holder of the defendant; that the plaintiff and her parents have good acquaintance with GPA holder of the defendant; that earlier, the said GPA holder of the defendant sold Plot No.11 to mother of the plaintiff and the suit schedule property is adjacent to the said plot; that the said GPA holder of the defendant along with her sister approached the plaintiff’s father and offered to sell the suit schedule property owned by the defendant for a consideration of Rs.25,65,000/-; that pursuant to the oral agreement of sale, the father of the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs in cash as advance/part sale consideration on 05.07.2021 and a receipt dated 05.07.2021 was also issued acknowledging receipt of said amount; that the father of plaintiff approached the defendant several times to register the sale deed by collection of balance sale consideration, but the defendant postponed the same on personal inconvenience; that the father of plaintiff was constantly pursuing to conclude the sale deed by paying balance sale consideration; that there are whatsapp messages with GPA holder regarding sale transactions upto 14.08.2021, however, thereafter she stopped responding to the request for the reasons best known to her; that legal notice dated 20.08.2021 were issued to defendant and also his GPA holder to come forward and execute registered sale deed by collecting balance sale consideration and the same were received by them on 21.08.2021; that there was exchange of legal notice and reply notice between the parties; and ultimately, as there was no response from the defendant’s side to perform his part of obligation, the plaintiff filed the suit.

5. The defendant entered appearance and served a notice dated 03.12.2021 to counsel for plaintiff under Order XI Rule 17 CPC to produce the whatsapp messages sent to the defendant and his GPA holder for the period specified therein, to which a reply notice dated 19.12.2021 was issued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, contending that defendant and his GPA holder also possessed those whatsapp messages since they are recipients of the same and hence, again producing the same for inspection cannot serve any purpose. He further contended that the whatsapp messages available with the father of plaintiff will be used, if required, during the course of evidence to test the veracity of the defendant by way of confrontation.

Thereafter, counsel for defendant filed a memo dated 20.12.2021 along with whatsapp messages exchanged between the parties. In response, counsel for plaintiff filed reply memo dated 05.01.2022 contend