THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 3780 of 2010 O r d e r: The petitioner, who is defendant No.8, aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2009, passed by the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 1934 of 2009 in O.S. No. 18 of 2001, filed by him seeking to direct respondent No.1, who is defendant No.8, to produce certain documents, to enable the petitioner to proceed with the suit proceedings, filed the present C.R.P. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1, who is sailing with the petitioner, is in possession of the agreement of sale dated 04.12.1961, original promissory note with stamp, original receipts, original sale deed dated 22.05.1971, original pahanies from the date of purchase of the property, original proceedings of MRO, Shamirpet Mandal of the year 1990 and cist receipts relating to land in Sy. Nos.158, 159, 164/2 and 164/3, and as respondent No.1 having colluded with third parties, is not producing the same, it is appropriate that respondent No.1 should be directed to produce the aforesaid documents, but the Court below committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for the said purpose. The submission of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction against the petitioner and respondent No.1, who are defendant Nos. 9 and 8 respectively. Since the plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction, it is for them to prove their case, and if at all those documents are necessary, it is the plaintiff who has to take steps to summon the documents. At any rate, since it is the specific case of respondent No.1 that he is not in possession of the documents, which the petitioner seeks to direct him to produce, no relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present application can be granted. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order under revision, passed by the Court below, refusing to allow the present application, and more so when the defendants are said to be dragging the suit, which is of the year 2001, by filing one application or the other. For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the C.R.P. and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 15th September, 2010 KSR