The court determined that the petitioner must independently pursue the return of documents without judicial intervention due to lack of notice in prior proceedings.

O R D E R

The first defendant filed a suit for specific performance; the revision petitioner is the first defendant. The first defendant filed an application under Order XIII Rules 8 and 9, Order XXII Rule 10, and Section 151 of C.P.C. , r/w Section 55 of T.P. Act , for return of original title deeds, which were filed in the suit for specific performance.

2. It is the categorical case of the revision petitioner/first defendant that though the plaintiff in the suit was for specific performance of an agreement as against the revision petitioner/first defendant, the relief of specific performance was declined, and refund of advance together with interest alone was ordered in favour of the plaintiff. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/first defendant that in compliance with the decree, the entire refund of advance has been made by depositing the same to the credit of the suit, and the plaintiff has also withdrawn the same.

3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the original documents of title relating to the suit property, which should have come back to the petitioner/first defendant, have been taken by the plaintiff by moving the Trial Court even in the year 2019. In order to get return of the said documents, the revision petitioner has moved an application in unnumbered R.P. SR. No. 4130/4 in O.S. No. 268 of 2010; the Trial Court has returned the same on 25.07.2025, stating that the documents have already been returned to the plaintiff even in the year 2019, and hence, the petition is not maintainable.

4. I do not see any infirmity in the order of return passed by the Trial Court. The return of the documents to the plaintiff would have been made only on an application made by the plaintiff, after notice to the petitioner/the first defendant. It is not the case of the petitioner that the documents were returned to the plaintiff without putting the revision petitioner on notice. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy for return of the documents from the plaintiff independently, in accordance with law. The return of the application and dismissal of the revision petition shall not come in the way, if the revision petition proceeds accordingly in the manner known to law.

5. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.