THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4695 of 2011 ORDER: Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed O.S.No.52 of 2007, which is now pending on the file of the Family Court, Prakasam, against the petitioner (first defendant) and respondent Nos.3 and 4 (defendant Nos.2 and 3) for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The first respondent took the plea that himself and his father, by name, Kandula Nagarjuna Reddy purchased the suit schedule property jointly, but over the period Nagarjuna Reddy had transferred his share to the petitioner. It is stated that the transfer was under un-registered document and the transfer was got validated by initiating proceedings under Section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'). Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed I.A.No.636 of 2011 under Rule 14 of Order XI C.P.C with a prayer to direct the petitioner herein produce the agreement of sale dated 05.01.1993. They pleaded that the said document was forged one and that no rights can accrue to the petitioner. The petitioner opposed the application by filing a counter. He stated that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have questioned the orders of validation by filing appeal and revision and that at present, a writ petition is pending. He further stated that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed a separate suit, being O.S.No.40 of 2010 for cancellation of the agreement of sale dated 05.01.1993 and that the said suit is clubbed with O.S.No.52 of 2007. The trial Court allowed the I.A through order dated 30.09.2011. Hence, this revision. Sri B.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court did not take into account, the various developments that have taken place before the authorities under the Act, or the factum of pendency of a suit in relation to that very transaction. He further submits that a direction for production of a document cannot be issued as a matter of force and the Court must record its satisfaction before directing production of the documents. Sri M.Narender Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, who filed caveat, submits that the principal defence raised by the petitioner herein in his written statement is that unless the original agreement is filed into the Court, effective adjudication cannot take place at all. He further submits that mere pendency of a writ petition or a suit would not be a ground to refuse production of relevant document and that the trial Court has taken a correct view of the matter. The suit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is one for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioner did not dispute the fact that the father of respondents 1 and 2 was a co- sharer in respect of the suit schedule property. However, a specific plea was raised to the effect that the father of respondents 1 and 2 has transferred his share in favour of the petitioner. Even for determination of the legality or nature of the transaction that took place under the said document, production is necessary. Failure on the part of the petitioner to produce the same would only lead to adverse inference. It may be true that the trial Court did not discuss the various contentions advanced by the parties in a detailed manner. However, the same was not on account of any disinclination on the part of the Court, but to avoid the possibility of any observations being made as regards legality or otherwise of the transaction. No prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date: 01.11.2011 va