Dismissed

1) Ch. Bhoopal Goud, v. Kilaru Vijakumar

Telangana HC25 Nov 2011CRP/2066/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 challenging an order under Order XI Rule 14 CPC. The lower court had directed a party to produce documents alleged to be necessary for adjudicating a suit involving claims of fraud. The revision court held no infirmity in the discretionary order below.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed with no costs.

1) Ch. Bhoopal Goud, Vs Kilaru Vijakumar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2066 OF 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the order dated 20.04.2011 passed in I.A.No.768 of 2010 in O.S.No.866 of 2008 on the file of the XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in allowing the said petition filed by the respondents herein under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 {CPC}, seeking to direct respondent No.12 to file the following documents: agreement of sale dated 31.08.1987, alleged agreement of sale dated 08.03.1987, the alleged GPA and the alleged sale deed purported to have been executed by them and also payment receipts of sale consideration.

¶4

The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this revision, are that the respondents herein filed the present petition for production of documents mentioned above, as they deem that the alleged documents are the basis for passing G.O.Ms.No.249 dated 21.02.2009 and the said documents are very much necessary to adjudicate the present suit. In the said petition, the petitioner herein filed counter alleging that the present petition is not maintainable as the issue involved in the suit is whether O.S.No.2097 of 1999 was filed by any fraud being played upon the Court and got decreed or not. The said suit was filed for perpetual injunction and after receipt of summons an ex parte decree was passed. The respondents argued that when the petitioner is denying the execution of such documents there is necessity to produce them, as the alleged documents are basis for passing G.O.Ms.No.249 dated 21.02.2009

¶5

and so they are very much necessary to adjudicate the present suit. Learned Judge, on considering the submissions made on both the sides, made it clear that the alleged documents were purported to have been executed by the respondents and the payment receipts of sale consideration are in possession of respondent No.12, as he had categorically admitted in Ex.A11 that he is in possession of the said documents and so, allowed the petition to produce the same. Hence, the revision.

¶6

Order XI Rule 14 CPC reads as under.

¶7

Production of documents – It shall be lawful for the Court, at any time during the pendency of any suit, to order the production by any party thereto, upon oath, of such of the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the Court shall think right; and the Court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just.

¶8

On reading the above provision and on considering the submissions made on both the sides, I deem it appropriate that any observation made herein will affect the merits of O.S.No.866 of 2008 on the file of the XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, as the learned Judge has exercised jurisdiction under Order XI Rule 14 CPC and allowed production of documents and it is a discretionary order. In the circumstances of the case, in order to finally adjudicate the dispute in question, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Court below to interfere with the same.

¶9

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶10

_____________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J)

¶11

25^th November 2011 RRB

1) Ch. Bhoopal Goud, v. Kilaru Vijakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

1) Ch. Bhoopal Goud, v. Kilaru Vijakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Eugene Yashao King, Vs Smt.K. Arundathi

Abdul Majeed Vs Mohammed Abdul Aziz

Y. T.Rajasekhar Vs v.Pershad Jaiswal

Asif Ali, Vs Smt. Anasuya

Mohammed Idris Vs Mohammed Siddique

J.Venkatesh Vs Smt. P. Sugunamma