THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2557 of 2023

ORDER

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2023 in I.A. No. 1341 of 2019 in O.S. No. 1294 of 2022(New) passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge at

Malkajgiri.

2. The Revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 to 6 r/w Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) for recovery of money from

the respondent/defendant.

3. The petitioner/plaintiff herein filed the underlying interlocutory application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code seeking to receive the documents for the purpose of marking the

same as evidence.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner herein is that she filed suit for recovery of money against the respondent/defendant for a sum of Rs.11,64,230/- along with interest @12% from the date of filing of suit; that the petitioner

herein filed the underlying interlocutory application seeking to receive the documents claiming that these documents are part and parcel of subject matter and crucial for adjudication of the suit; and that the same were kept with the respondent. The documents which are sought to be received by the underlying interlocutory application filed are :

i. Copy of agreement of sale executed in favour of respondent by V. Sri Sailam Goud, ii. Copy of Cheque no. "000343" dated 04-12-2018, iii. Statement of Encumbrance on property dated 03-11-2018, iv. Acknowledgement of receipt of money dated 03-10-2018 for Rs.

40,000/-; dated 02-11-2018 for Rs. 1,20,000/-; dated 06-11-2018 for Rs. 40,000/-, v. Cheque no. 142049 with defendant signature, vi. Promissory note with defendant signature on one revenue stamp, vii. Phone-pay transaction details dated 03-10-2018 for Rs. 25,000/-, viii. Phone-pay transaction details dated 03-10-2018 for Rs. 15,000/-, ix. Bank account statement of ICICI Bank of plaintiff and x. Bank account statement of Andra Bank of Hemanth Reddy.

5. The respondent herein contends that said documents are not part of the subject matter of the suit and said documents are out of the preview of the respondent.

6. The Court below while adjudication the underlying interlocutory application, by its order dated 28.02.2023, observed that the petitioner neither pleaded the existence of the documents nor demonstrated their prima facie relevance to the cause of action in the suit and does not show significance over the facts in dispute. Further, the court below also observed that the petitioner failed to mention the reasons for receiving the documents sought to be filed and thus, held that the documents cannot be received.

7. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

8. Heard Smt. T. Manjula learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Jaipal Reddy learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff herein contends that the Court below ought to have allowed the application, since the documents therein were crucial for adjudication of the suit. It is further contended that the Court below erred in observing with regard to the admission made by defendant in her written statement regarding the payment of Rs.2,00,000/-

along with interest.

10. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

11. In the present case, the petitioner/plaintiff herein has asserted that the documents in question, which are sought to be filed by the underlying interlocutory application, are relevant to her claim, were in the custody of the respondent. However, the respondent has specifically denied having possession of any such documents in her counter. However, it is to be noted that though the petitioner /plaintiff may not have the custody of the documents, but had sufficient knowledge of the existence of the said documents at the time of filing of the suit plaint.

12. It is to be noted that, Order VII Rule 14 of CPC mandates that the plaintiff shall produce a