HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No. 2399 OF 2010 Friday, the Eighteenth day of June, Two Thousand and Ten Between Prakash Kumar Gupta Petitioner AND Mirza Ali Akbar Respondent THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO. 2399 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner in I.A. No. 53 of 2010, who is defendant in O.S. No. 1452 of 2007 on the file of the XXII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, aggrieved by the order dated 22.4.2010 dismissing the petition filed under Order XI Rule 14 CPC to direct the plaintiff/respondent herein to produce the documents enabling him to cross examine PW-1. The respondent herein filed the above suit for recovery of possession and future mesne profits. It is the case of the petitioner, who is defendant in the suit, that the respondent herein has purchased the property in 1985 under a registered sale deed and that there was rental agreement entered into in the year 1986 between the parties apart from other eight rental agreements. Therefore, sought for a direction to the respondent herein to produce the same including municipal tax receipts for the year 2006-07; whereas, it is the case of the respondent, who is plaintiff in the suit, that since the petitioner herein had been continuously paying rent, the ownership of the property is not in dispute. It is also his case that since none of the agreements are registered, they cannot be looked into and are inadmissible in evidence. It is also stated that the brief case containing all the lease deeds was misplaced and, therefore, he is not in a position to produce the same. The court below, by the order impugned, dismissed the petition observing since the brief case containing the documents was misplaced, the petitioner cannot be compelled to produce the same and that the petitioner herein can take advantage of non-production of the rental agreements. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. As observed by the court below, the ownership of the property is not in dispute, inasmuch as the petitioner has been paying rents. Therefore, non-production of the registered sale deed does not have any bearing. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the court below has rightly observed that the petitioner is at liberty to take advantage of non-production of the documents, sought to be produced. 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. Inasmuch as the suit is of the year 2007, court below is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari June 18, 2010 MAS