IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4687 OF 2010 Between:- Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, Rep. by its Chairman and 5 others …Petitioners A n d B.V.Radha Krishna …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4687 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the docket order dated 30-08-2010 in I.A.No.1125 of 2010 in O.S.No.1426 of 2010, on the file of the I-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the respondent herein under Order XI Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC to send for certain documents from the office of the respondent, was allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit against the petitioners for declaring that the letter dated 04-05-2010 issued by D-4 transferring the plaintiff from Hyderabad Branch to Kolkata office as illegal and arbitrary and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from giving effect to the transfer order dated 04-05-2010 transferring the plaintiff from Hyderabad to Kolkata office or any other branch of defendant’s company outside A.P. The respondent- plaintiff was working as Assistant Manager Grade-X post in D-1’s company at its Hyderabad branch. He has been working in the defendants’ office at Hyderabad ever since the date of joining service in 1989. According to the plaintiff, on 11-05-2010, he was served with a letter dated 04-05-2010 signed by D-4 transferring him to Kolkata office with ulterior motive and unknown reasons. The plaintiff pleads that the action of the defendants in transferring him suddenly to Kolkata is vindictive in nature and is an act of victimization. He further pleads that the consistent practice in the defendants’ company so far as the employees are concerned is only to effect transfers on request and the knowledge of local language is insisted upon before effecting any transfer even in request transfers effected on consent. The plaintiff alleges that the transfer order dated 04-05-2010 is contrary to the practice in vogue in the defendants’ organization. According to him, several more experienced and senior legal managers are available in the defendants’ organization at Hyderabad and names one Ms. Uma Rastogi as one among them and pleads that the reason mentioned in the letter dated 04-05-2010 that he is transferred because of his experience is incorrect. He, therefore, filed a suit for declaration and injunction. 4. The defendants, after service of summons, entered appearance and they are yet to file their written statement. Meanwhile, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1125 of 2010 under Order XI Rule 14 CPC seeking a direction to the defendants to produce the enquiry report and audit reports against the petitioner, transfer policy of D-1’s company as well as the transfer request and file of Ms.Uma Rastogi and the personal record including appraisal for the last 10 years of the petitioner for the purpose of enquiry in I.A.No.535 of 2010. The respondents filed a counter opposing the petition on the ground that the documents sought have no relevance. The learned Senior Civil Judge, by the impugned docket order, allowed the said application observing that the petitioner made out a case to produce the documents. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed the present civil revision petition. 5. Admittedly, the plaintiff is an employee of D-1’s company. He has been working at Hyderabad office of D-1’s company ever since the date of his joining service in 1989. When he is transferred to Kolkata office by orders dated 04-05-2010, he filed the present suit alleging that it is an act of victimization and vitiated by ulterior motives. He filed I.A.No.533 of 2010 for temporary injunction. A n ex parte interim injunction was granted on 25-06- 2010. The petitioners-defendants filed counter in I.A.No.533 of 2010 denying the allegation of mala fides and contending that the transfer of the petitioner is effected in the normal course similar to transfers effected in respect of many other employees. 6. According to the plaintiff, there is no transfer policy at all in D-1’s company and transfers are effected only on request and with the consent of the employees. The petitioners- defendants denied the same and contend that transfer is an incidence of service and no employee can have vested right to work at a particular place all through his service. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced and the suit itself is not maintainable and the trial Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for and without adjudicating upon the question of jurisdiction, the trial Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction and cannot direct the defendants to produce the documents. 8. The question as to whether or not the suit is maintainable and the reliefs prayed for are prima facie entertainable, is a matter to be considered by the trial Court. The scope of enquiry in the present civil revision petition is limited. The plaintiff sought production of various documents viz., the enquiry report, audit reports, transfer policy and request transfer file of Ms.Uma Rastogi and the personal record, including the appraisal records of the petitioner for the last 10 years. The application is filed under Order XI Rule 14 CPC. In the affidavit filed in support of the application except stating that the said documents are relevant for the purpose of enquiry in I.A.No.533 of 2010 and they are material for the purpose of adjudication of suit as well as I.A., the plaintiff has not stated as to how and why they are relevant. Order XI Rule 14 CPC states that it shall be lawful for the court, at any time during the pendency of the suit, to order the production of the documents in possession or power of any party relating to any matter in question in such suit. Before seeking production of the documents under Order XI Rule 14 CPC, the plaintiff has to establish that the said documents relate to the subject matter of the suit and they are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute. The trial Court in the impugned order has also not stated as to how the documents are found to be relevant for the purpose of the suit. Though the petitioners-defendants have filed a counter opposing the application specifically stating that the document sought for are not relevant for deciding the present I.A., the trial Court, by a cryptic docket order, observed that petitioner made out a case for production of the documents and in the body of the order only one document viz., transfer policy is specifically referred to stating that the same is relevant to consider the credentials of the petitioner. Nothing is stated in respect of other documents as to how they are relevant for the purpose of disposal of I.A.No.533 of 2010. The impugned docket order, which is bereft of any reasoning, is wholly unsustainable. Further, when the defendants have specifically raised the question of want of jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit in the counter filed in I.A.No.533 of 2010, it is incumbent upon the trial Court to decide the same at the first instance before embarking upon adjudication of the dispute. The impugned order, which does not conform to the requirements of Order XI Rule 14 CPC and which is passed assuming jurisdiction without deciding the question specifically raised in that regard is, therefore, held liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside and consequently I.A.No.1125 of 2010 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23rd February, 2011 Lrkm.