THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6347 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner herein is the plaintiff, which filed the suit in O.S.No.545 of 2006 on the file of the V Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, for recovery of possession of the stocks with an alternative prayer of recovery of a sum of Rs.3,68,088/- contending that before the said stocks were seized by the 4th respondent Bank on 31-08-2000, it has purchased the said stocks from the 3rd respondent-Sri Dattasai Industries Limited, Ongole, and, therefore, pending suit, it filed I.A.No.705 of 2009 to direct the 4th respondent bank to produce stock statements, list of debtors submitted by the 3rd respondent to the 4th respondent bank on 31-07-2000 and 07-08-2-000, seizure report, dated 31-08-2000, relating to the 3rd respondent and list of account for the year 2000-2001 relating to the 3rd respondent, which are in the custody of the 4th respondent bank, before the Court. The court below vide its order, dated 05-10-2009, dismissed the said application, against which, this Civil Revision Petition is filed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the said stocks and, therefore, to prove its pleadings, the said documents are necessary. It is the case of the 4th respondent Bank that to prove the point in issue, the stock statements, dated 31-07-2000 and 07-08-2000 are not necessary and the genuineness or otherwise of the purchase of the said stocks by the petitioner from the 3rd respondent has to be established by the plaintiff as the burden of proof lies upon it. The records relating to the 3rd respondent are not in the custody of the bank authorities and the petitioner-plaintiff as well can summon the 3rd respondent to cause production of its books. Insofar as seizure panchanama, dated 31-08-2000 is concerned, it is stated that the Bank would file the same during the course of trial, but the books of accounts of the 3rd respondent relating to the year 2000-01 are not in the custody of the bank and, therefore, it could not be filed. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent has borrowed loan amount, which along with interest has gone beyond rupees seven crores and, therefore, the 4th respondent Bank has already initiated debt recovery proceedings against the 3rd respondent and disposed of the plant and machinery and also the stocks. It is stated that all the assets of the 3rd respondent have already been sold away and auction purchasers are in possession. It is further stated that when the stocks relating to the 3rd respondent are hypothecated as security in favour of the 4th respondent bank and in fact, even if the petitioner-plaintiff said to have purchased the said stocks, delivery of possession was admittedly not given in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, the stocks, which are in the custody of the 3rd respondent are entitled to be seized by the 4th respondent towards the amount due by the 3rd respondent. I am not inclined to consider the rival contentions of both the parties. But, however, when it is the case of the petitioner-plaintiff that it is a bonafide purchaser of the said stocks much prior to the seizure of the stocks, it is for the petitioner to establish by adducing appropriate evidence. Whether the suit filed by the petitioner is a collusive suit with the 3rd respondent or not is also a matter to be established during the course of trial. Therefore, there cannot be any justification in seeking production of the 3rd respondent documents by the 4th respondent Bank, as the learned Judge rightly held that it is for the petitioner to take steps for production of the documents relating to the 3rd respondent seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent. Insofar as seizure panchanama is concerned, the 4th respondent Bank fairly stated that it will produce seizure panchanama during the course of trial. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the court below had rightly dismissed the said application and this Court does not find any infirmity, legal or otherwise in the impugned order, so as to call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 15-07-2011 Prv