HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2964 OF 2009 Dated 8th December, 2009 Between: Bandlamudi Rajendra Kumar. ….Petitioner. And: Yelamanchili Koteshwara Rao. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2964 OF 2009 ORDER: This C.R.P. is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 22nd June, 2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad in I.A.No.330 of 2009 in O.S.No.113 of 2004. Petitioner herein is the defendant and respondent herein is the plaintiff. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Court below for the sake of convenience. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant in O.S. 113 of 2004 before the Court below seeking for specific performance of contract. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant filed an application under Order 16 Rule 6 C.P.C. in I.A.No.330 of 2009 in O.S.No.113 of 2004 seeking to summon the document dated 19-5-2002 executed by the plaintiff from one Sri A.Madhava Rao. By the impugned order, the Court below having observed that the document dated 19-5-2002 cannot be said to be a relevant document for the proof of the case of the defendant and having opined that the application in question is filed only to protract and delay the suit proceedings, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been preferred by the defendant. Heard the learned counsel. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant that any person even if he is not a party to the proceedings in the suit, can be summoned to produce the document to render an effective adjudication of the issues involved in the suit and hence, there is no legal impediment for summoning the document in question. It is further contended that the findings given by the Court below that the document in question is not relevant to prove the case of the defendant, is nothing but a predetermination of the issues involved in the suit. Hence, the Court below is not justified in dismissing the application and as such, the order impugned is liable to be set aside allowing the revision. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that the defendant had not accepted the offer made by the plaintiff in the document in question. If that being the case, the defendant is not a party to the said document and hence, summoning of the document alleged to be in the custody of one A.Madhava Rao would not serve any purpose for the case of the defendant. Hence, order impugned is justified and it does not warrant any interference and as such, this revision is liable to be dismissed. I have perused the material available on record. The grievance of the defendant is that the plaintiff filed the suit against him for specific performance of contract and the defendant failed to pay half of the amount as agreed before 15-2- 2002 and hence, the agreement of sale stands cancelled and the amount paid also was forfeited and subsequently on 19-5-2002, the plaintiff made an offer and agreed that he will pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,61,500/- before 30-6-2002 and get the property registered, but he did not accept the offer. He came to know that the said document is in the custody of one A.Madhava Rao who is an elderly person and hence, he seeks to summon A.Madhavarao to produce the said document and give evidence. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had not accepted the offer made by him in the document dated 19-5- 2002. If that being the case, the defendant is not a party to the said document and hence, summoning of the document alleged to be in the custody of one A.Madhava Rao would not serve any purpose for the case of the defendant. Admittedly the suit is filed for specific performance. Whether the defendant has accepted the offer made by the plaintiff or not has to be adjudicated at the time of trial but not at this stage of interlocutory. In this regard, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in summoning the document in question in order to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings of this nature. Hence, I am of the view that the Court below ought to have allowed the relief sought for by the defendant and the Court below is not justified in dismissing the application. In this view of the matter, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order impugned. No costs. ________________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 8th December, 2009. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2964 OF 2009 Dated 8th December, 2009