In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff's financial capacity and readiness to perform the contract are triable issues to be determined during the trial, and the court should not compel the production of personal bank statements at an interlocutory stage through a roving inquiry.

ORDER

1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by learned IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad in I.A.No.457 of 2023 in O.S.No.328 of 2021 dated 11.04.2023.

2. Petitioner is the respondent-plaintiff and respondent No.1 is the petitioner – defendant in I.A.No.457 of 2023 in O.S.No.328 of 2021 and respondent Nos.2 to 5 are the legal representatives of respondent No.1.

3.1 Respondent No.1 – petitioner - defendant has filed I.A.No.457 of 2023 under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 read with Section 151 of CPC to pass an order for discovery and inspection and production of documents from the custody of the petitioner – respondent - plaintiff. The documents sought by the respondent No.1 – petitioner – defendant are bank statements for the period commencing from 31.03.2020 till date i.e., 27.02.2023 for analyzing the petitioner-respondent-plaintiff's cash flow and liquidity and solvency for having paid the advance sale consideration amount and for paying the balance sale consideration amount as asserted in the pleadings in the plaint.

3.2 Petitioner-respondent-plaintiff filed counter and contended that the application filed by respondent No.1 – petitioner - defendant is not maintainable and devoid of merits. Respondent No.1 – petitioner - defendant did not take any plea in the written statement, a new plea is taken in the affidavit, the issue has to be decided during the course of trial and prayed to dismiss the petition.

3.3 Learned Trial Court has allowed the application filed by respondent No.1 – petitioner - defendant which is impugned in the present CRP.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner – respondent – plaintiff submits that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the facts with its judicial mind and ought to have seen that no one is compelled to produce the documents which have no relevancy at all. As per Section 16(c) Explanation (i) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in Court any money except when so directed by the Court. The learned Trial Court ought to have seen that suit is for specific performance of contract and the petitioner-respondent-plaintiff is ready to perform his contract, himself and his family members are having sufficient lands which are fetching good value in the market. Respondent No.1 – petitioner - defendant having filed IA under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC, which came to be dismissed and only to harass the petitioner-respondent-plaintiff he filed I.A.No.457 of 2023. The order passed by the learned Trial Court is perverse. In support of his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Central Bank of India Vs. Shivam Udyog and others¹1 (1995) 2 SCC 74, (ii) Sukhbir Singh and Others Vs. Brij Pal Singh and Others²2 AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 2510 (iii) Azhar Sultana Vs. B.Rajamani and others³3 AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2157 (iv) Hari Steel and General Industries Limited and another Vs. Daljit Singh and Others⁴4 AIR 2019 Supreme Court 4796 and (v) Rajesh Bhatia and others Vs. G.Parimala and another⁵5 2006 (3) ALD 415.

5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly directed the petitioner-respondent-plaintiff to produce the documents which shows whether he has capacity to pay the amount and the respondent No.1- petitioner-defendant during his lifetime has issued statutory notice dated 11.02.2023 under Order XI Rules 15 and 16 of CPC calling the petitioner-respondent-plaintiff to produce the documents to prove his case