IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2809 OF 2010 Between : D.Jogi Reddy .... PETITIONER A N D M.Ravinder and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 2809 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 04.03.2010, in I.A.No.1184 of 2009 in O.S.No.38 of 2008 on the file of XI Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Order XI Rule 14 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to direct the petitioner herein/plaintiff to produce original sale deed bearing document No.400/64 in the suit, was allowed directing him to produce the same before the Court on or before 29.03.2010, failing which an adverse inference can be drawn against him as laid down in Rajesh Batia Vs. G.Parimala (2006(3) ALD 415) and State of Rajasthan Vs. R.D.Jain (AIR 1994 Rajasthan 114). 2. Heard both sides. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the original document was not available with the petitioner, and as and when the document is traced he would produce the same before the Court below. 4. Two conditions must be satisfied before a Court orders production of document viz., (i) the document must be in possession (custody) or power of the opposite party against whom direction is sought; and (ii) it must relate to the controversy involved in the suit or matter in dispute. No party can claim relief of production of a document from his opponent as a matter of right. The power conferred on a Court under this rule to order production of documents is discretionary. 5. When a notice was issued to the petitioner to produce the original document within two days from the date of receipt of the notice, he has taken the plea that the original document is not readily available with him. When the document is not readily available with the petitioner, the question of directing him to produce the document does not arise. Therefore, the trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in directing and compelling the petitioner to produce the document, which is not readily available in possession of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 04.03.2010 in I.A.No.1184 of 2010 in O.S.No.38 of 2008 on the file of XI Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court) City Civil Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU. J OCTOBER 25, 2010. YVL