THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1370 of 2008 Date: 18.11.2010 Between: Thadi Ammatalli and another. … Petitioners and State Bank of Patiala, N.A.D. Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam, Rep.by its Branch Manager. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1370 of 2008 ORDER : Inspite of service of notice, none appears for the respondent-bank. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the docket order, dated 17.1.2008, in O.S.No.797 of 2006, passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, rejecting the notice memo filed by the defendants for production certain documents to prove their case. 3. The petitioners are defendants and the respondent-bank is the plaintiff in suit O.S.No.797 of 2006 for recovery of money on the ground that the 1st defendant has availed the loan by mortgaging the title deeds and the 2nd defendant stood as a guarantor. The Branch Manager of the plaintiff-bank was examined as PW.1 and during the course of cross-examination on 5.12.2007, PW.1 admitted that he is having custody of the 1st defendant’s title deeds, salary certificate, builders agreement as well as legal opinion sought by them while granting loan to the 1st defendant and if they are required he will produce the same before the Court below. Accordingly, the defendants filed a notice memo under Order 12 Rule 8 of C.P.C., seeking production of the said documents. The plaintiff-bank filed objections for the said memo stating that all those documents are pertaining to the 1st defendant, who provided the same to the plaintiff-bank at the time of sanction of loan and the said notice memo was filed only to procrastinate the proceedings and to defeat the legitimate rights of the plaintiff-bank and also to gain time. It is also stated that the plaintiff- bank has served all the documents to the defendants, which are transcribed at the time of advancing the loan to the 1st defendant and, therefore, the question of producing the said documents by the plaintiff does not arise and there is no necessity for the plaintiff to produce the said documents as the defendants are not entitled under law to seek production of their own documents from the plaintiff. Through the impugned docket order, the Court below rejected the said memo. Hence the present civil revision petition. 4. It is to be noticed that during the course of cross-examination, PW.1-plaintiff agreed for production of the above documents so as to establish the defence of the defendants and to disprove the plaint allegations. The whole case of the plaintiff for recovery of money is based on the said documents. Whether the said documents are genuine and whether they are mortgaged, unless the said documents are produced and made available to the Court, it is not possible for the defendants to rebut the allegations made in the plaint. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no justification on the part of the plaintiff-bank in refusing to produce the documents in question and mark them as exhibits. The observations of the Court below that the defendants have an option to request the Court to draw an adverse inference for non- production of such of those documents, which according to the defendant would adversely affect the plaintiff’s case in case they are produced, is without any justification. Therefore, the Court below ought to have allowed the said notice memo filed by the defendants requiring the plaintiff to produce the documents in question. 5. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed, at the stage of admission, setting aside the impugned docket order, dated 17.1.2008, in O.S.No.797 of 2006, passed by the Court below. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH 18.11.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1370 of 2008 18.11.2010 (Msr)