THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.2269, 2279, 2292 OF 2002 COMMON ORDER: Since these three revisions arise between the same parties and out of same proceedings, they are taken up together for disposal. The petitioners in the first two revisions are defendants 4,5 and 6 and the petitioners in the third revision are defendants 1 and 2. In these three revisions, the order under challenge virtually runs in the same lines as if sailing together. In regard to the first revision is concerned, it is filed against the order of the Court below in I.A.No.1144 of 2001 in directing the plaintiff to produce the documents as detailed in the petition provided they are available and relevant to the present controversy. In so far as the second revision is concerned, it is filed against the order of the Court below in I.A.No.1145 of 2001 in closing the petition with a finding that adverse inference would be drawn against the first respondent/plaintiff-bank if the requisite certificate is not filed or if it is filed without complying with the directions given by this Court relating to the same. In regard to the third revision is concerned, it is filed against the dismissal order of the Court below in I.A.No.1141 of 2001. As far as first revision is concerned, it is needless to mention that any observation would always be subject to the proof and relevancy rather than making any observation as such about availability and relevance. As far as the availability is concerned, it is for the parties to come out with any evidence rather than Court giving any observation to that effect. As far as the relevancy and the production of documents is concerned, the same has to be marked through witness. This aspect has to be appreciated. Therefore, the observation of the Court below about the availability and relevancy is subject to proof. As far the second and third revisions are concerned, the same are filed against the orders dated 08.02.2002 in I.A.Nos.1145 and 1141 of 2001 respectively. While closing the said applications, the Court observed that having regard to the earlier orders of production of the documents, it would suffice to observe that in the event of non-compliance thereof, adverse inference has to be drawn. Hence, it is needless to go into that observation. Accordingly, CRP.No.2279 of 2002 is dismissed and CRP.Nos.2269 and 2292 of 2002 are allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. ____________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, HACJ) 18th November 2010 RRB