THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD WEDNES, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5718 OF 2009 Between: Marneedi Appa Rao …Petitioner A n d M/s Kalpatharu Real Estates Development, Guntur, Rep. by its Managing Partner ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5718 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 27-10-2009 in I.A.No.597 of 2009 in O.S.No.230 of 2001, on the file of the V-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein, the defendant, under Order XI Rule 14 CPC read with 151 CPC, seeking a direction to the respondent-plaintiff to produce the income tax returns for the years 1990 to 2001 and also the account books of the firm maintained by the respondent-plaintiff, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit against the petitioner for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 31-03-1990. The petitioner filed written statement contesting the suit. Necessary issues were settled. Before the trial could commence, the petitioner-defendant filed I.A.No.597 of 2009 seeking a direction to the respondent-plaintiff to produce the income tax returns for the years 1990 to 2001 and also the account books of the firm maintained by the respondent-plaintiff. The respondent-plaintiff filed counter opposing the said application and stated that the documents i.e., income tax returns for the years 1990 to 2001 and also the account books of the firm were not available with them. The trial Court has, therefore, dismissed the said application. When the respondent- plaintiff has taken a specific stand that the documents are not available, the question of directing them to produce before the Court does not arise now. However, it is open to the petitioner-defendant to request the Court to draw adverse inference, if any, in that regard and the trial Court would consider the said request on its own merits. The impugned order is, therefore, held not liable to be interfered with. 4. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed with the above observation. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 09th March, 2011 Lrkm.