THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2516 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the docket order, dated 20.02.2008, in O.S.No.1552 of 2005 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby, the memo, filed under Order XII Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”), by the petitioner/plaintiff, to give a direction to the respondents/defendants to produce the agreement drafted by the elders of the panchayat and original 'D' Form patta of suit schedule property, which were in the custody of the respondents, was closed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The impugned order reads as follows: "Heard the advocate for the petitioner with regard to this memo and objections filed by the advocate for D.2. The learned advocate for plaintiff argued that though in the W.S. D2 stated that the said document for with him and he did not produce the same. The learned advocate for D.2 argued that he will produce the said document if required at an appropriate time and the plaintiff is not entitled for production of the said document before the plaintiff cross examination. Perused the record and also gone through Or.12. of C.P.C. In the above circumstances the memo is closed and both parties are directed to make furnishing at time of final hearing of the suit with regard to this memo." 4. Order XII Rule 8 C.P.C. requires notice to the other side to produce documents in possession at the time of hearing. Where such party fails to produce documents in spite of notice under Order XII Rule 8 C.P.C., the party issuing notice may lead secondary evidence of documents under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Order XI Rule 14 C.P.C. enables the Court at any stage to order to produce by any party to the suit document in his possession or power relating to any matter in question in the suit. There is a distinction between Order XI Rule 14 and Order XII Rule 8 C.P.C., which has been clearly pointed out by a decision of this Court in Koduri Krishnarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1], wherein it is held thus: “At the threshold of his argument before us, Sri B.V. Ramanarusu, the learned counsel for the appellant put forward the plea that he was handicapped by the Government withholding material evidence. In support of this complaint, he referred to his notice dated 25-09-1956 issued to the defendant under O. XII, R. 8 to produce 18 items of documents. The defendant replied on 22-10-1956 producing some documents and stating that some others were not available with the Highways Department. In regard to 5 of the documents, it was stated that they were unpublished reports of one Government Officer to another and were inadmissible in evidence. However, the plaintiff did not pursue the matter further and the trail commended on 22-10-1956 itself. It is now contended by the learned counsel that prima facie the aforementioned 5 items are not privileged under Section 123 of the Evidence Act, and that such of the documents as were not available with the Highways Department ought to have been produced by the defendant after obtaining them from the department with which they were lodged. It is urged that there was default on the part of the defendant in respect of all these documents and that the trial Court ought to have struck out the defence under O. XI, R. 21. We see no substance in these submissions. A plain reading of O. XI, R. 21 shows that the Court could have invoked the penal provisions of that rule only if there had been an order to answer interrogatories or for discovery or for inspection of documents under Rules 11, 12 and 18 of O. XI. The plaintiff did not apply under any of the provisions of O. XI at all. He merely gave a notice to produce under O. XII, R. 8. If there was default on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff’s notice enabled him to adduce secondary evidence of the contents of the documents under Section 65, clause (a) of the Evidence Act. It is not even suggested that the plaintiff sought to let in secondary evidence of these documents and that such evidence was shut out. It follows that nothing turns on the partial non-compliance on the part of the defendant with the plaintiff’s notice under O. XII, R.8 dated 25-09-1956.” Order XII Rule 8 C.P.C. has no application to the present facts of the case. The said provision applies only at the stage of first hearing of the case. Even otherwise, as seen from the order under challenge, it is clear that the counsel for defendant No.2 in the trial Court assured to produce the document required at an appropriate time. Therefore, the trial Court rightly closed the memo. Hence, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order will not preclude the petitioner in invoking a correct provision of law in view of the fact that the respondents also stated that they would produce the said documents, if required, at appropriate time. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 23, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2516 OF 2008 Between: Pittala Neelam Udaya Bhaskara Rao .....PETITIONER AND Sri Anne Bosu and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2516 OF 2008 September 23, 2010 [1] AIR 1962 Andhra Pradesh 249 (V 49, C 67)