HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2691 of 2014 Date:03.09.2014 Between:
Prashanth Ravula, S/o Baleshwar Ravula and three others.
. Petitioners And:
LUCINTEL LLC. 1320, Greenway Dr.Suite 870, Irving, Texas 75038 and another.
. Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Resu Mahender Reddy Counsel for the respondents: ---
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order, dated 07.07.2014, in I.A.No.401 of 2014 in O.S.No.723 of 2009 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
The respondents filed the above-mentioned suit against the petitioners for permanent injunction restraining the latter from infringing the copy rights and for rendition of accounts, etc. The respondents filed I.A.No.401 of 2014 for a direction to petitioner No.2- defendant No.2 to produce certain documents such as Bank Statements, Financial Statement and Market reports. The petitioners filed a counter-affidavit resisting the said application. However, by its order, dated 07.07.2014, the lower Court has allowed the said application.
Sri Resu Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, stated that the documents which are directed to be produced by the lower Court are not at all relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the suit.
Under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is empowered to order production by any party of the documents in his possession relating to any matter in question in the suit it shall think right and thereupon, the Court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner it shall appear just.
In its order, the lower Court has repelled the plea of the petitioners that the documents in respect of which production is sought by the plaintiffs have no relevance.
In paragraph No.6 of its order, the lower Court has given detailed reasons for directing the petitioners to produce the documents. Having carefully considered these reasons, I am of the opinion that they do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP.No.3730 of 2014 shall stand dismissed as infructuous.
03rd September, 2014 DR
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY