HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No. 2452 OF 2010 Friday, the Eighteenth day of June, Two Thousand and Ten Between M/s. Legend Estates Pvt. Ltd., 6-3-1238, 6th Floor, Legend Apartment, Renuka Enclave, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Rep. By its Managing Director B.Nageshwar Rao Petitioner AND Mir Zaheer Mohammed Khan Respondent THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO. 2452 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the respondent company in I.A. No. 1298 of 2008, which is plaintiff in O.S. No. 1597 of 2008 on the file of the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, aggrieved by the order dated 7.5.2010 allowing the petition filed under Order XI Rule 14 CPC directing the petitioner company to produce certified copy of the plaint, written statement, judgment and decree in OS No. 199/1 of 1952 and affidavit, counter and order in E.P. No. 37 of 1961 o the file of II Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by 5.6.2010. It is the case of the respondent herein that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property by virtue of gift deed dated 10.08.1990 executed by her paternal step grandmother Smt.Mahboob Begum, who is the second wife of his grandfather, and his name was mutated and since then he had been paying the property tax. It is further stated that the said Mahboob Begum got the property by virtue of a registered gift deed executed by grandfather of the petitioner, whereas it is the case of the petitioner herein that Smt.Kharunnessa Begum, the first wife of petitioner’s grandfather obtained the said property in E.P. No. 37 of 1961 in OS No. 199/1 of 1952 on the file of the II Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which according to it, were filed in a Second Appeal and the respondent herein has to follow the procedure for obtaining certified copies thereof. The court below, by the order impugned, allowed the petition observing that when the petitioner herein is relying on the said documents, a duty is cast on it to produce the same, more particularly when the basic establishment of II Addl. Chief Judge’s Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in the year 1952 of 1961, is being disputed by the respondent herein. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. As observed by the court below, when the respondent herein is disputing the basic establishment of the II Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, on the file of which E.P. 37 of 1961 in OS No. 199/1 of 1952 are said to have existed, through which the petitioner herein claims title, it is the bounden duty of the petitioner herein to produce the documents, irrespective of the fact that they are public documents and certain procedure is prescribed for obtaining certified copies thereof. Having gone through the entire material available on record, I do not find see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari June 18, 2010 MAS