1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by learned IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad in I.A.No.457 of 2023 in O.S.No.328 of 2021 dated 11.04.2023.

2. Petitioner is the respondent-plaintiff and respondent No.1 is the petitioner – defendant in I.A.No.457 of 2023 in O.S.No.328 of 2021 and respondent Nos.2 to 5 are the legal representatives of respondent No.1.

3.1 Respondent No.1 – petitioner - defendant has filed I.A.No.457 of 2023 under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 read with Section 151 of CPC to pass an order for discovery and inspection and production of documents from the custody of the petitioner – respondent - plaintiff. The documents sought by the respondent No.1 – petitioner – defendant are bank statements for the period commencing from 31.03.2020 till date i.e., 27.02.2023 for analyzing the petitioner-respondent-plaintiff's cash flow and liquidity and solvency for having paid the advance sale consideration amount and for paying the balance sale consideration amount as asserted in the pleadings in the plaint.

               3.2 Petitioner-respondent-plaintiff filed counter and contended that the application filed by respondent No.1 – petitioner - defendant is not maintainable and devoid of merits. Respondent No.1 – petitioner - defendant did not take any plea in the written statement, a new plea is taken in the affidavit, the issue has to be decided during the course of trial and prayed to dismiss the petition.

               3.3 Learned Trial Court has allowed the application filed by respondent No.1 – petitioner - defendant which is impugned in the present CRP.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner – respondent – plaintiff submits that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the facts with its judicial mind and ought to have seen that no one is compelled to produce the documents which have no relevancy at all. As per Section 16(c) Explanation (i) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in Court any money except when so directed by the Court. The learned Trial Court ought to have seen that suit is for specific performance of contract and the petitioner-respondent-plaintiff is ready to perform his contract, himself and his family members are having sufficient lands which are fetching good value in the market. Respondent No.1 – petitioner - defendant having filed IA under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC, which came to be dismissed and only to harass the petitioner-respondent-plaintiff he filed I.A.No.457 of 2023. The order passed by the learned Trial Court is perverse. In support of his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Central Bank of India Vs. Shivam Udyog and others ((1995) 2 SCC 74), (ii) Sukhbir Singh and Others Vs. Brij Pal Singh and Others (AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 2510) (iii) Azhar Sultana Vs. B.Rajamani and others (AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2157) (iv) Hari Steel and General Industries Limited and another Vs. Daljit Singh and Others (AIR 2019 Supreme Court 4796) and (v) Rajesh Bhatia and others Vs. G.Parimala and another (2006 (3) ALD 415).

5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly directed the petitioner-respondent-plaintiff to produce the documents which shows whether he has capacity to pay the amount and the respondent No.1- petitioner-defendant during his lifetime has issued statutory notice dated 11.02.2023 under Order XI Rules 15 and 16 of CPC calling the petitioner-respondent-plaintiff to produce the documents to prove his case in accordance with law. No interference is called for. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mohamed Haji Latif and others (AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1413), (ii) Shri M.L.Sethi Vs. Shri R.P.Kapur (AIR 1972 SC 2379), (iii) State of Kerala Vs. Mathai Verghese and others (AIR 1987 Supreme Court 33), (iv) Sunita Devi Vs. State of Bihar and another (AIR 2005 Supreme Court 498), (v) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S. Hindustan Bulk Carriers (AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3942), (vi) G.Pankajakshiamma Vs. Mathai Mathew (2004 CJ (SC) 392 = 2004 (12) SCC 83), (vii) Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Others Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead) through LRs (AIR 2012 SC 1727), (viii) Kalawati (D) though LRs and others Vs. Rakesh Kumar and others (2018 (3) ALD 63 (SC)), (ix) Vijay Kumar and Others Vs. Om Parkash (AIR 2018 SC 5098), (x) Ritu Saxena Vs. J.S.Grover and another (AIR Online 2019 SC 1072), (xi) M/S. Puri Investments Vs. M/S. Young Friends and Company and others (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 279), (xii) Nagammai Achi Vs. Alamelu Achi (AIR 1957 Madras 401), (xiii) P.Varalakshmamma Vs. Subrary Manyam and others (AIR 1958 AP 157), (xiv) P.Seethamma and Others Vs. P.Ramakrishna Reddy and others (1997 (2) ALD 68), (xv) P.P.Raj and another Vs.Sri Rama Finance Corporation and others (1999 (6) ALD 690), (xvi) P.Meharunnissa Begum and others Vs. P.Noorunnissa Begum and others (2001 (6) ALD 229), (xvii) Rajesh Bhatia and others versus G. Parimala and another (2006 (3) ALD 415), (xviii) T.Surya Satish Goud Vs. T.@ P. Dharanija and others (2017 (2) ALD 39), (xix) United India Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad Vs. Y.Adilakshmi and others (2011 (3) ALD 89), (xx) Tikkavarapu Subba Rami Reddy Vs. State of Telangana Through Secretary, Revenue Department (2017 CJ (HYD) 438 = 2017 (6) ALT 644), (xxi) Sri Thakur Yogendher Singh Vs. Yvonne Douglas Foundation and others (CRP.Nos.3076 of 2015 and batch in the High Court for the State of Telangana, dated 20.09.2022), and prayed to dismiss the CRP.

6.1 Petitioner – respondent - plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance of contract in respect of agreement of sale dated 23.04.2021. The prayer in the suit is to direct the defendant (respondent No.1 herein) to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,30,00,000/- and to execute and register sale deed in his favor, alternatively direct the defendant (respondent No.1 herein) to pay double the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- received towards advance sale consideration to the plaintiff, i.e., total Rs.60,00,000/-.

               6.2 The suit schedule property is plot bearing No.54 phase-I, Type B, admeasuring 257 sq.mtrs in survey Nos.69 and 70, situated at Shaikhpet village, Kamalapuri, Hyderabad with specific boundaries.

7. The plaint averments goes to show that the total sale consideration for the suit schedule property is Rs.3,60,00,000/-. On the date of agreement of sale dated 23.04.2021, petitioner - respondent - plaintiff has paid Rs.30,00,000/- in cash to the respondent No.1 – petitioner - defendant and the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.3,30,00,000/- to be paid by the petitioner – respondent – plaintiff within 90 days. Respondent No.1 – petitioner - defendant has acknowledged the payment of Rs.30,00,000/- on the same day. Plaint further goes to show that during verification of original sale deed dated 14.08.1984 of respondent No.1 – petitioner - defendant, there is a difference of 23 sq.mtrs from the agreement of sale, the same is brought to the notice of the respondent No.1 – petitioner - defendant, he confirmed the mistake and ensured that he will register 257 sq.mtrs and not 280 sq.mtrs. Petitioner – respondent – plaintiff has got issued legal notice on 29.08.2021 expressing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. Respondent No.1 – petitioner - defendant received the notice and got issued a reply on 03.09.2021 admitting the agreement of sale, however, he alleged that the petitioner – respondent - plaintiff played fraud in inserting the different extent of land and further denied the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff, which led to filing the suit.

8. Respondent No.1 – petitioner – defendant filed his written statement and contended that he is the absolute owner and possessor of property premises bearing No.8-3-833/54 admeasuring 257 sq.mtrs, equivalent to 308 square yards with existing ground, first and second floor building situated at Phase – I, Kamalapuri colony, Hyderabad, and the total sale consideration fixed is Rs.3,60,00,000/-, petitioner – respondent - plaintiff has paid Rs.30,00,000/- as advance sale consideration as per the agreement of sale dated 23.04.2021. Time fixed in the agreement is 90 days to fulfill the obligation.

9. Respondent No.1 has filed I.A.No.1197 of 2021 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC to reject the plaint in O.S.No.328 of 2021. Petitioner – respondent - plaintiff filed his counter and the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application on 22.09.2022.

10. Respondent No.1 – petitioner - defendant died on 19.04.2023 after passing of the order in I.A.No.457 of 2023 dated 11.04.2023 thereby his LRs were brought on record in the suit as defendant Nos.2 to 5.

11. Prior to filing I.A.No.457 of 2023, respondent No.1 – petitioner - defendant has got issued a legal notice to the petitioner – respondent - plaintiff on 11.02.2023 for production of bank statement as stated supra in paragraph No.5.

12. It is apt to refer Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and explanations (i) and (ii), which reads as under:

               16. Personal bars to relief:- Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person-

               (a) ---

               (b) ---

               (c) who fails to prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant.

               Explanation:- For the purposes of clause (c),-

               (i) where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court;

               (ii) the plaintiff must prove performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction.

13. 1 In Central Bank of India1 the Supreme Court held that in case the defendants desired to raise the question of jurisdiction on the ground that the mortgage was fictitious, they could do so. But for that it was not necessary to summon the disciplinary proceedings pending against the bank officials even if one of the charge is that the security furnished by the defendant was fictitious.

               13.2 In Sukhbir Singh2 Supreme Court held that it is sufficient for the respondents to establish that they had the capacity to pay the sale consideration. It is not necessary that they should always carry the money with them from the date of the suit till date.

               13.3 In Azhar Sultana3, the Supreme Court held with regard to the readiness and willingness to perform the contract and it was not necessary that entire amount of consideration should be kept ready by the plaintiff.

               13.4 In Hari Steel and General Industries Limited4, the Supreme Court held that it is not permissible for making roving inquiry for disposal of application filed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC [judgment on admission].

               13.5 In Rajesh Bhatiya5, the High Court observed at paragraph No.44 as under:

               44. Having regard to the view taken by me hereinabove, the individual parties cannot be compelled to produce the documents if they refuse to produce the documents pursuant to the notice served upon him by the adversary or an order as a matter of that passed by the Court so as to ascertain the truth in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 165 of the Act for non-compliance of such a direction to produce the documents, the penal consequences will not follow as in the case of discovery of documents as per the provisions contained in Order 11, Rule 21 of the Code. However, certainly the Court is entitled to draw the adverse inference.

14.1 In Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar6 the Supreme Court held that a party in possession of best evidence which would throw light upon the issue in controversy withholding it, adverse inference has to be drawn.

               14.2 In Shri M.L.Sethi7, the Supreme Court held that the documents sought to be discovered need not be admissible in evidence in the enquiry or proceedings, it is sufficient if the documents would be relevant for the purpose of throwing light on the matter in controversy. In the above said case, an application came to be filed for permission to sue in forma, pauperis.

               14.3 In Mathai Verghese8 the matter pertains to currency notes.

               14.4 Sunita Devi9 case deals with anticipatory bail and grant of blanket protection given for unlimited period.

               14.5 In M/s.Hindustan Bulk Carriers10 the Supreme Court held that the provisions of one section of the statute cannot be used to defeat those of another unless it is impossible to effect a reconciliation between them.

               14.6 In G.Pankajakshiamma11, the Supreme Court dealt with recovery of unaudited money.

               14.7 In Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes12, the Supreme Court held that in Civil Cases, adherence to Section 30 CPC would also help in ascertaining the truth. In the above said decision the suit is pertaining to possession of the suit property.

               14.8 In M/s.Puri investments16, the Supreme Court has discussed the scope of interference by the Supervisory Court on the decision of the fact - finding forum under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

               14.9 In Nagammai Achi17 Madras High Court held that Section 54 of Income Tax Act is not concerned with admissibility of those documents, but only directs that they should be treated as confidential and prevents the compulsory production or those documents by the Income Tax Department.

               14.10 In P.Varalakshmamma18, Andhra Pradesh High Court held that under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC, enacts that it shall be lawful for the Court, at any time during the pendency of any suit to order the production.

               14.11 In P.Seethamma19 High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh has dealt with interrogatories.

               14.12 In P.P.Raj20, High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held that adverse inference has to be drawn for failure to produce income tax returns. In the above said case the suit was pertaining to money decree.

               14.13 In P. Meharunnisa Begum21, the High Court of judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, held that a party to a suit can approach the Court for compelling the other side to produce the document in possession of the latter. In the above said case, the suit was for partition.

               14.14 In Rajesh Bhatia22 the observations of the Madras High Court in Nagammai Achi is relied.

               14.15 In T.Surya Satish Gaud23, High Court of Judicature, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held at paragraph No.12 that the Court below had allowed the applications of the wife obviously to enable her to prove that the medical record sought to be summoned from the hospital is manipulated by the husband with the connivance of the hospital authorities. In the above said CRP matter is pertaining to matrimonial dispute for grant of divorce.

               14.16 Y.Adilakshmi24, pertains to Motor Vehicles Act, Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Order XI Rule 14 of CPC does not prevent a party from making an application for production of the documents.

               14.17 In Tikkavarapu Subba Rami Reddy25, the High Court of Hyderabad held that when it is the prayer for proof of the documents in the custody of the defendant No.2, it is to say the description of the plan also reflected in furtherance of the plaintiffs suit claim. Once, such is the case, it is just in directing the party in possession of the document to produce rather than dismissal of the application. In the above said case, the suit was for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

               14.18 In Sri Thakur Yogendher Singh26, this Court directed the first defendant to produce bank statement and his Income Tax Returns for the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. In the above said decision, the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking cancellation of agreement of sale-cum-GPA and perpetual injunction.

15. Learned counsel on record have cited decisions in respect of readiness and willingness i.e., (i) Sukhbir Singh2, (ii) Azhar Sultana3 (iii) Kalawathi13, (iv) Vijay Kumar14 and (v) Ritu Saxena15. Insofar as readiness and willingness is concerned, it is a matter to be decided after leading the evidence by the parties. The order challenged in the CRP is with respect to allowing the application filed by respondent No.1 - petitioner - defendant for production of documents.

16. As stated supra, petitioner - respondent - plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of contract and it is him, who has to prove that a valid agreement of sale is entered between the parties and which party has committed the breach of contract. These are the matters which are required to be looked into during the course of trial. Respondent No.1 - petitioner - defendant has admitted in the reply notice dated 03.09.2021 about the parties entering into agreement of sale dated 23.04.2021 and the total price fixed therein is Rs.3,60,00,000/-. On the date of agreement an advance amount of Rs.30,00,000/- is paid by the petitioner – respondent - plaintiff. The only defence taken in the reply notice dated 03.09.2021 by respondent No.1 – petitioner - defendant is that wrong extent is mentioned with the mala fide intention. These are the matters to be looked into during the course of trial and the learned Trial Court has lost sight of Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act with that of the explanation and wrongly arrived at a conclusion that production of documents will not give any adverse inference on either side in order to know the real controversy between the parties for proper adjudication of the matter in dispute.

17. It is the petitioner - respondent - plaintiff who has to prove his case whether he was ready to pay the balance sale consideration to the respondent No.1 - petitioner – defendant, which is a matter to be decided during the course of trial. Furthermore, it is not the case of the respondent No.1 - petitioner - defendant in reply notice dated 03.09.2021 that the petitioner - respondent - plaintiff has no capacity to pay the balance consideration and fraud is played on him regarding inception of extent in the agreement of sale and the condition of 90 days is not complied. The learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the facts of the case in right perspective and directed the petitioner - respondent - plaintiff to produce the documents.

18. The decisions cited by learned counsels on record from paragraph Nos.13.1, 13.4, 13.5 and 14.1 to 14.18 are not applicable to the case on hand as they are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus the ratio of those cases would not apply.

19. In view of the reasons above, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is perverse and requires interference of this Court. Hence the impugned order is set aside.

20. CRP.No.1684 of 2023 is allowed and the order passed by the learned IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad in I.A.No.457 of 2023 in O.S.No.328 of 2021 dated 11.04.2023 is set aside and consequently I.A.No.457 of 2023 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Interim orders if any stands vacated. Miscellaneous petitions stands closed.