T PADMA Vs. ANREDDY SAI REDDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri C.A.R. Seshagiri Rao, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. Respondents were served and none represents the respondents.

(2.) This Court, ordered notice before admission on 22-12-2005 and granted interim stay, which was in fact extended even subsequent thereto.

(3.) Sri C.A.R. Seshagiri Rao, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner would contend that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, which had been pleaded in the plaint, the issuance of notice to the opposite party for production of original document in question may not arise. The learned Counsel specifically pointed out to the relevant paras in the plaint at paras-6 and 7 and would maintain that in the light of the proviso to sub-section 3 of Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'the Act'), such notice may not be necessary and in the light of said provision, the applicability or otherwise of Order XII Rule 2 of CPC needs no serious consideration.