THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.465 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.62 of 2005 in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali against his father-first respondent, brother-second respondent, sister-third respondent and other family members-respondents 4 to 7 for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. He filed I.A.No.652 of 2005 under Order 11 Rule 14 C.P.C. with a prayer to appoint a Commissioner to take the inventory of certain documents. It was pleaded that in addition to the suit schedule properties, the family is possessed of various items of properties, in relation to which the documents are in possession of the 1st respondent. The I.A. was ordered and the inventory was prepared. The petitioner filed I.A.No.988 of 2005 with a prayer to direct the respondents herein to produce the documents of which inventory was taken in I.A.No.652 of 2005. The petitioner stated that production of documents is necessary to have a complete list of the properties and to determine their nature. The I.A. was opposed by the 1st respondent. Through its order dated 04.08.2005, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this civil revision petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The relief claimed by the petitioner is the one for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. Obviously not being aware of the full particulars of the property held by the family, which is managed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed I.A.No.652 of 2005 with a prayer to appoint a Commissioner to take the inventory of the documents relating to movable and immovable properties. The I.A. was allowed and the list was prepared. Once the particulars are available, the character of the properties needs to be decided. While the petitioner contends that the said properties are acquisitions of the joint family, the 1st respondent claims them to be his self-acquisitions. Unless the documents are placed before the Court and evidence in relation thereto is adduced, it would not be possible for the trial Court to express any opinion. On the other hand, withholding of the documents may lead to an inference against the 1st respondent. Whatever be the scope of Rule 14 of Order 11 C.P.C in other suits such as those for declaration of title and injunction, in a suit for partition, the production of documents covering items of properties virtually becomes a matter of course. The reason is that even subsequent to the preliminary decree, items of properties can be either added or deleted as and when the parties come to know about the same. Therefore, the view taken by the trial Court in the order under revision cannot be sustained. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to file the copies of the documents, which are enlisted in the inventory in pursuance of the orders in I.A.No.652 of 2005. It shall be open to the parties to lead evidence as regards the character of the properties covered by these documents. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 06.10.2009 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.465 of 2006 Date: 06.10.2009 JSU