IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE : ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5 0 6 7 OF 2009 Between: Adorn Garments Represented by Sachin Basias & Anr. … Revision Petitioner V/s. M/s. Xposure & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Revision Petitioners: Sri Mir Masood Khan Counsel for the Respondents Caveators : M/s. Shyam S. Agarwal THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5 0 6 7 OF 2009 O R D E R : This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners- plaintiffs against the order dated 01-9-2009 passed in I.A.No. 815 of 2009 in OS.No. 3044 of 2009 by the X-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowing the application filed under Order- XI, Rule-14 of the Code of Civil Procedure directing the respondents to produce Franchise Agreement dated 28-09-2007 either in original or copy and also a statement of account with regard to the sale of material made by the petitioner to the respondents from October 2007 to June 2009 on or before 07-9- 2009. 2. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition are briefly stated as follows: It is stated that the respondents filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering in the business and premises of the respondents bearing M.No. 3-6- 561/1/2, G-1, Altos Trade Centre, Himayathnagar and filed I.A.No.699 of 2009 seeking for interim injunction in which the court ordered statusquo on 25-6-2009. It is further stated that immediately after receipt of notice and summons, the petitioners appeared before the court on 02-7-2009 through their advocate and that on the same day they got served the notice to the counsel for the respondents under Order-XI, Rule-16 of CPC and Order-XII, Rule-8 of CPC calling upon them to produce the Franchise Agreement dated 28-2-2007 was mentioned in para No.2 of the plaint and also statement of account with regard to sale of the material made by the petitioners to the respondents from Octobr 2007 to June 2009 as called for in the notice dated 30-6-2009 to the notice dated 23-6-2009. It is also stated that even though two weeks expired from the date of service of notice on 02-7-2007, respondents have not produced the documents called for. 3. On the other hand, the respondents filed their counter with the following averments in brief: It is averred that serving of notice under Order-XI, Rule-16 and Order-XII, Rule-8 of CPC are illegal and the reply notice is wholly untenable and illegal and the petitioners are also in possession of the original agreement of franchise and they may be directed to produce the same. The respondents denied the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. It is averred that the notice issued to the respondent does not come within the ambit of the proforma as contemplated in the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further averred that the petitioners are contagarous litigants and harassing all the people dealing with them and therefore prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. On the basis of rival contentions of the parties and on appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Judge allowed the application filed under Order-XI, Rule-14 of the Code of Civil Procedure directing the respondents to produce Franchise Agreement dated 28-09-2007 either in original or copy and also a statement of account with regard to the sale of material made by the petitioner to the respondents from October 2007 to June 2009 on or before 07-9-2009. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents-plaintiffs filed the present revision contending that the trial court ought to have taken cognizance of memo and counter dated 10-8- 2009 filed by them wherein they have categorically stated that they are not in possession of the original document and it is with the petitioners-defendants. Further it is contended that the trial court erred in not appreciating the fact from the pleadings of either of the parties that the suit is filed by the plaintiffs seeking injunction on the business under the name and style “Xposure” which is readymade garments. As such, their earlier franchise agreement has no material value for disposal of main suit or the interlocutory application. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners- plaintiffs as well as the learned counsel for the respondents- caveators and perused the impugned order. 7. It is an admitted fact that the revision petitioners- respondents have served a notice to the respondents-petitioners on 23-6-2009, for which a reply notice dated 30-6-2009 was given to the counsel for the revision petitioners-respondents calling upon him to furnish attested copy of the alleged franchise agreement dated 28-9-2007 and a complete statement of account with regard to the sale of material made by the respondents-petitioners to the revision petitioners-respondents from October 2007 to June 2009 and for which the learned counsel for the revision petitioners-respondents gave a reply notice wherein it was mentioned that the original franchise agreement dated 28-9-2009 is in the custody of the respondents- petitioners and the revision petitioners-respondent have retained a copy of the same. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has observed that the revision petitioners-respondents have approached the court on the basis of franchise agreement and the transactions between themselves and the respondents- petitioners, it is for them to produce the agreement or atleast copy of the same, which was mentioned in the reply notice given on behalf of the respondents-petitioners. Therefore, the observation made by the learned trial Judge is perfectly justified and under the above circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ______________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI 06-11-2009. I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5 0 6 7 OF 2009 Circulation Entry No. 22 Date: 06-11-2009 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43