MOTIRAM CHOUDHARY HUF Vs. NEMA RAM CHOWDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.11.07.2018 passed in I.A. No.1988 of 2017 in O.S. No.515 of 2013 by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad dismissing the said application filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the original of agreement of sale dt.12.12.2011 and extension to time agreement dt.12.05.2012.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that these two documents were executed between the petitioner and the defendants 5 to 11, but these documents were left in the custody of the 1st defendant and when the petitioner issued notice to the 1st defendant to produce it, the 1st defendant has denied having custody of the documents in the written statement filed by the 1st defendant. It is also alleged that petitioner had issued notice dt.25.10.2017 to the respondents to produce the said documents and the respondents replied denying the very existence of the agreement of sale dt.12.12.2011 and agreement of extension of time dt.12.05.2012.

(3.) The Court below held that the very existence of those documents is in doubt because even petitioner had filed application with the copies of the documents without containing signatures of the parties and that according to the respondents there was no payment was made by the petitioner and those documents were not executed at all. It therefore held that the petitioner should comply with the requirements of Order XII Rule 8 and issue notice in Form No.12 in appendix (C).