THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2465 OF 2011 DATED: 19.08.2011 Between : P. Pavan Kumar .. Petitioner And Syndicate Bank, JSN Colony Branch, St. No.8, Habsiguda,Hyderabad-7, rep By its Senior Branch Manager Dr. K.Narasimhulu .. Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2465 OF 2011 ORDER: The revision petitioner is the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.2151 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the VII-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District. The suit is filed by the respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,16,591/- allegedly due from the defendants. The 1st defendant/the revision petitioner, who is an advocate, filed a written statement making a counter-claim of Rs.4,19,586/- allegedly due to him from the plaintiff towards professional fee and filing expenses. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder contending that the cases entrusted to the defendant No.1 were not numbered and therefore he was not entitled to receive the professional fee and expenses. Subsequently the defendant No.1/ revision petitioner filed I.A.No.1525 of 2009 under Order 16 Rule 6 of CPC to summon the plaintiff to produce certain documents stating that the plea of the plaintiff in the rejoinder that the defendant No.1 was depanelled was false. It was also pleaded that as the plaintiff failed to furnish the details of suits and E.Ps. entrusted to him, the details of the cases numbered and payment of professional fee in respect of the cases numbered, the details of the cases stated to have been not numbered and etc., it is necessary to direct the plaintiff to produce the following documents: “(1) Suit filing registers of JSN Colony, Abids, Borabanda and King Koti Branches of the plaintiff Bank; (2) 60 suit filing registers of SIRISHA Loans; and (3) Statement of Payments credited to petitioner’s Savings Bank Accounts corresponding to each case, i.e., the suit of EP.” After hearing both the parties, the Court below while holding that the plaintiff was liable to furnish the details of the cases entrusted by it to the 1st defendant as well as the details of the payments made to him, allowed I.A.No.1525 of 2009 to the said extent by order dated 20.09.2010. The request of the 1st defendant to summon the other documents was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 20.09.2010, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. As could be seen from the material available on record, the plaintiff is JSN Colony Branch of Syndicate Bank. The suit was filed for recovery of the amounts allegedly due towards the loan account availed by the defendant No.1 from JSN Colony Branch. The defendant No.1 is an advocate and it is not in dispute that he appeared on behalf of the JSN Colony Branch in some matters. He made a counterclaim towards the professional fee and expenses allegedly due to him from the Syndicate Bank. However the documents sought to be summoned in I.A.No.1525 of 2009 included the suit filing registers and other registers as well as statement of payments said to have been credited to the Savings Bank Account of the defendant No.1 with JSN Colony Branch and two other Branches of Syndicate Bank. It was pleaded by the plaintiff in its counter-affidavit that even according to the defendant No.1 only five cases were entrusted to him by JSN Colony Branch and though the particulars of the profession fee and expenses relating to the said cases were available with it, the records and details relating to the other branches were not available. Having accepted the said plea, the Court below allowed I.A.No.1525 of 2009 only to the extent of the cases entrusted to JSN Colony Branch. The learned counsel for the Revision petitioner vehemently contended that the Court below had committed a grave error in rejecting the prayer of the Revision petitioner/defendant No.1 to the extent of summoning the documents from other branches since all the branches together constitute a legal entity. The head office of Syndicate Bank is situated at Manipal, Karnataka State and there are several branches throughout the country. The plaintiff - JSN Colony Branch is one of the branches from which the defendant No.1 availed the loan facility. Alleging default in repayment of the said loan amount, the main suit was filed for recovery of money. The defendant No.1 made a counter-claim claiming that Rs.4,19,586/- is due towards his professional fee and expenses incurred. Even according to the defendant No.1, the amounts claimed by him relate to the cases entrusted by the plaintiff as well as other branches of Syndicate Bank. It is true that all the branches of the Syndicate Bank constitute a single entity, however having made a counter claim in the suit filed by one of the Branches, it is for the 1st defendant to establish his claim by producing necessary evidence. Since the registers and documents relating to the other branches are not in the custody of the plaintiff, the Court below had rightly declined the 1st defendant’s prayer to the extent of the said documents. The said order passed by the Court below cannot be held to be erroneous on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 19.08.2011 gbs