THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P. No. 1595 of 2009 Order: This revision is directed against the dismissal order dated 18.12.2008 passed in I.A. No.253 of 2008 in O.S. No. 349 of 2006 by the XIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the original suit. His case is that the respondents 2 and 3 herein entrusted the work of blasting and excavation to the first respondent and the petitioner has executed the said work as a sub- contractor of the first respondent. On completion of the work the petitioner made a claim to the first respondent claiming the amount for the work done by it. The first respondent has been disputing the quantities of work done by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the officials of the second respondent have taken the measurement of the quantities of the work done by the petitioner and the original measurement books and bills are in the custody of the second respondent and that those documents are required for the purpose of adjudicating the case. It is also his case that he got issued a notice on 01.08.2008 to the counsel for the second respondent calling upon the second respondent to produce the original documents and in spite of receiving notice the second respondent has not produced those documents before the Court. The first respondent did not file any counter. A counter was filed on behalf of the second respondent. The only contention of the second respondent is that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the second respondent and it is not aware about the work entrusted by the first respondent to the petitioner and since the second respondent is not a party to the said contract it has nothing to do with the dispute inter se between the first respondent and the petitioner. The lower Court dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the petitioner failed to mention how the documents are relevant for the purpose of deciding the issues in a suit between the petitioner and the first respondent. No representation for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents are relevant and necessary for deciding the quantities of work done by the petitioner and the entire suit claim is based on the quantities of work done by the petitioner. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the documents are relevant and necessary for just conclusion of the case. It is the case of the petitioner that he has done the work on behalf of the first respondent as a sub-contractor and when the quantities of work done by the petitioner are in dispute it is clear that the measurement book showing the quantities of work done by the petitioner and the bills which are in the custody of the second respondent are relevant and necessary for the just conclusion of the case. It is not the case of the second respondent that its officials have not taken the measurements of the quantities of the work done by the petitioner. The lower Court utterly failed to understand the importance of the documents which clinch the main issue between the petitioner and the first respondent. Though the petitioner is not a party to the contract between the first respondent and respondents 2 and 3, but it is not in dispute that it is the petitioner who had in fact executed the work and it is entitled to claim the amount for the work done by it. In view of the same, the CRP is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The lower Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, in the circumstances, no costs. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 14.02.2011 Nsr