Civil Revision No. 6389 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6389 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision. 19.10.2011 Gautam Sharma .... Petitioner Versus Paramvir Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Saurav Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. CM No.25357-CII of 2011 The application for exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-5 is allowed. Document Annexures P1 to P-5 are taken on record. C.R. No.6389 of 2011 This is a revision petition brought by the plaintiff under the the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 15.05.2010(Annexure P-4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, vide which the application filed by respondent no.1 under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, Order 11 Rules 14 &15 CPC, Order 12 Rule 8 CPC has been allowed and order dated 12.11.2010, vide which the application for review of the order dated 15.5.2010 has been dismissed. Civil Revision No. 6389 of 2011 --2-- The petitioner had brought a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 22.11.2001 alleged to have been executed in his favour by defendant no.1 with respect to a residential property. After mentioning the details of the agreement of sale dated 22.11.2002, the plaintiff has mentioned in para no.2 of the plaint that prior to the execution of the agreement dated 22.11.2002, defendant no.1 had agreed to sell the said property in favour of the plaintiff at a lesser rate for which a part of the sale consideration of Rs.51,000/- was received by defendant no.1 from him. Defendant no.1 is thereafter said to show inclination to back out of the agreement and he demanded higher rate for the property and with the intervention of some persons, defendant no.1 executed the agreement of sale dated 22.11.2002. By filing application under the aforesaid provisions, respondent no.1 prayed for an order to the plaintiff to produce the earlier agreement referred to in the plaint by him. A number of opportunities had been given to the plaintiff to file reply to the application. On 15.5.2010, in the face of failure of the plaintiff to file reply to the application despite a number of adjournments for the purpose, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not interested in filing the reply to the said application. Consequently the application was allowed and the plaintiff was directed to produce the original agreement of sale in the court on 29.05.2010. Civil Revision No. 6389 of 2011 --3-- On the same day, reply to the application was filed but as the order had already been passed, learned trial court adjourned the matter to 29.05.2010 for consideration. On 12.11.2010 application for review of order dated 15.5.2010 has been dismissed by learned trial court. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the plaintiff has brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri Saurav Khurana, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while the new agreement was executed between the parties, the earlier one was destroyed and, therefore, he was not in a position to bring the same on the record. He has drawn my attention to the reply of plaintiff to the application of respondent no.1, in which it is mentioned that the document was destroyed at the time of execution of the agreement dated 22.11.2002. He has submitted that in these circumstances, no order directing the plaintiff to produce the document could be made. A perusal of the plaint of the suit filed by the petitioner (Annexure P-1) would reveal that no plea of destruction of the earlier agreement of sale at the time of execution of agreement of sale dated 22.11.2002 has been taken. The order dated 15.5.2010 directing the plaintiff to produce the original agreement of sale has been made in the presence of learned counsel representing the plaintiff/petitioner. If the reply to the application was in the process of preparation, learned counsel for the plaintiff could have made a statement seeking some time for Civil Revision No. 6389 of 2011 --4-- producing the same. Therefore, it is clear that the reply was prepared after the passing of the impugned order just to make out a case of non giving of opportunity to reply the application. As there is no such plea in the plaint regarding destruction of the document at the time of execution of the agreement of sale dated 22.11.2002, the plea taken in the reply filed after the passing of the impugned order on 15.5.2010 seems to be incorrect. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed on 15.5.2010 directing the plaintiff to produce the agreement of sale. I also find no illegality in the order dismissing the application for review of the said order on 12.11.2010. If the plaintiff claims that the said agreement of sale which he referred to in the plaint has been destroyed, then he may not produce the same and go to trial with the plea that the said record has been destroyed. In the circumstances discussed above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The revision petition, therefore, merits dismissal and is dismissed as such. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 19.10.2011 JUDGE dinesh