` HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Civil Revision Petition No.736 of 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed, aggrieved by the order, dated 30.12.2024 passed in I.A.No.2594 of 2024 in O.S.No.117 of 2011 by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

2. Heard Sri M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri V. Ramchander Goud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.V. Pratap Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that the 1st respondent- plaintiff filed O.S.No.117 of 2011 for specific performance against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 8. In the said suit, the 1^st respondent has filed I.A.No.2594 of 2024 seeking a direction to the petitioner to produce the original sale deed, dated 02.12.2010 before the trial Court for verification of its genuineness. Without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner, the trial Court vide allowed the said I.A. order dated 30.12.2024 and directed the petitioner to produce the original sale deed, dated 02.12.2010, by 10.01.2025.

4. Learned Senior Counsel had further contended that since the 1^st respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit, the trial Court cannot compel the petitioner to produce the original sale deed, which is in his custody, and the 1st respondent also cannot compel the petitioner for marking of the said document. Learned Senior Counsel had further contended that the petitioner is willing to produce the original sale deed before the trial Court and let the trial Court return the original sale deed dated 02.12.2010 after its examination.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent had contended that the 1st respondent has filed certified copy of the original sale deed, and it was marked as Ex.A-40, however, there were certain

discrepancies in the said sale deed and that necessitated the 1st respondent to file the said I.A. seeking a direction to the petitioner to produce the original sale deed, so as to enable the trial Court to compare the original sale deed with that of the certified copy of the sale deed filed by the 1^st respondent. Hence, the trial Court was justified in allowing the said I.A. in favour of the 1^st respondent. Therefore, there are no merits in the civil revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by both the parties, is of the view that the petitioner has given an undertaking that he will produce the original sale deed before the trial Court for examining the original sale deed, dated 02.12.2010. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to produce the original sale deed, dated 02.12.2010 before the trial Court on the next date of hearing. The trial Court shall examine the original sale deed and take the photo copy of the same for adjudication of the case. It is open for the 1st respondent to raise about the validity of the said sale deed in accordance with law. Upon producing the original sale deed, dated 02.12.2010 by the petitioner, the respondent No.1 is entitled to peruse the same in the Court premises. Since the suit pertains to the year 2011, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

7. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________________

ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

_

Date: 28.03.2025

prat/rkk

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Civil Revision Petition No.736 of 2025 Date: 28.03.2025 prat