THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2104 OF 2014 Dated:14-08-2014 Between:
Smt. Niveditha Manvikar ... PETITIONER AND Sri Mohammed Nayeem .. RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2104 OF 2014 ORDER:
The respondent filed O.S No. 31 of 2010 against the petitioner in the Court of X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 16-12-2005. The petitioner filed written statement opposing the suit. The respondent filed I.A No. 1906 of 2011 under Order XI Rule 14 CPC, with a prayer to direct the petitioner to produce the original receipt dated 05-08-2008 covering a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. He stated that the original receipt is with the petitioner and in spite of repeated demands, she did not handover the same. The petitioner filed a counter opposing the I.A. She flatly denied the existence of such a receipt or its possession with her. The trial Court allowed the I.A through its order dated 09-06-2014. Hence, this revision.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
In a suit for specific performance, it is for the plaintiff to file the relevant documents and satisfy the Court for granting a decree. The respondent placed heavy reliance upon the receipt dated 05-08-2008. Not only he did not file it, but he insisted that the petitioner must produce the same. A civil Court can issue appropriate directions in exercise of power under Order XI Rule 14 CPC, if only there is no dispute as to the custody of the document with the other side. The petitioner herein categorically stated that the receipt is not with her. There was absolutely no basis for the trial Court to allow the I.A. Further, the natural custody of the receipt in a transaction for purchase of land is supposed to be with the purchaser, who in the instant case is the respondent.
Viewed from any angle, the order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law. The C.R.P is accordingly allowed setting aside the order of the trial Court. It is however left open to the respondent to establish his plea as to the payment of consideration and receipt of the same through further evidence, if any.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 14-08-2014 ks