Telangana High Court
Mr. Dudekula Chand Pasha vs Mr. Mirza Hussain All (Died Per Lr) on 2 April, 2026
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1684 OF 2023
Dated: 02.04.2026
Between:
Mr.Dudekula Chand Pasha
... Petitioner - Respondent - Plaintiff
And
1.Mr.Mirza Hussain Ali (Died per LR) and others
... Respondents - Petitioners - Defendants
ORDER
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
2/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.1684 of 2023
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
3/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.1684 of 2023
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 1, (ii) Sukhbir Singh and Others Vs. Brij Pal
Singh and Others 2 (iii) Azhar Sultana Vs. B.Rajamani and others 3 (iv) Hari
Steel and General Industries Limited and another Vs. Daljit Singh and
Others 4 and (v) Rajesh Bhatia and others Vs. G.Parimala and another 5.
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
1 (1995) 2 SCC 74
2 AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 2510
3 AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2157
4 AIR 2019 Supreme Court 4796
5 2006 (3) ALD 415
4/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.1684 of 2023
and others 6, (ii) Shri M.L.Sethi Vs. Shri R.P.Kapur 7, (iii) State of Kerala Vs.
Mathai Verghese and others 8, (iv) Sunita Devi Vs. State of Bihar and
another 9, (v) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S. Hindustan Bulk
Carriers 10, (vi) G.Pankajakshiamma Vs. Mathai Mathew 11, (vii) Maria
Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Others Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria
(Dead) through LRs 12, (viii) Kalawati (D) though LRs and others Vs. Rakesh
Kumar and others13, (ix) Vijay Kumar and Others Vs. Om Parkash 14, (x)
Ritu Saxena Vs. J.S.Grover and another 15, (xi) M/S. Puri Investments Vs.
M/S. Young Friends and Company and others 16, (xii) Nagammai Achi Vs.
Alamelu Achi 17, (xiii) P.Varalakshmamma Vs. Subrary Manyam and
others 18, (xiv) P.Seethamma and Others Vs. P.Ramakrishna Reddy and
others 19, (xv) P.P.Raj and another Vs.Sri Rama Finance Corporation and
others 20, (xvi) P.Meharunnissa Begum and others Vs. P.Noorunnissa
Begum and others 21, (xvii) Rajesh Bhatia and others versus G. Parimala
and another 22, (xviii) T.Surya Satish Goud Vs. T.@ P. Dharanija and
others 23, (xix) United India Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad Vs.
6 AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1413
7 AIR 1972 SC 2379
8 AIR 1987 Supreme Court 33
9 AIR 2005 Supreme Court 498
10 AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3942
11 2004 CJ (SC) 392 = 2004 (12) SCC 83
12 AIR 2012 SC 1727
13 2018 (3) ALD 63 (SC)
14 AIR 2018 SC 5098
15 AIR Online 2019 SC 1072
16 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 279
17 AIR 1957 Madras 401
18 AIR 1958 AP 157
19 1997 (2) ALD 68
20 1999 (6) ALD 690
21 2001 (6) ALD 229
22 2006 (3) ALD 415
23 2017 (2) ALD 39
5/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.1684 of 2023
Y.Adilakshmi and others 24, (xx) Tikkavarapu Subba Rami Reddy Vs. State
of Telangana Through Secretary, Revenue Department 25, (xxi) Sri Thakur
Yogendher Singh Vs. Yvonne Douglas Foundation and others 26, 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/-
24 2011 (3) ALD 89
25 2017 CJ (HYD) 438 = 2017 (6) ALT 644
26 CRP.Nos.3076 of 2015 and batch in the High Court for the State of Telangana, dated 20.09.2022
6/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.1684 of 2023
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
7/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.1684 of 2023
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.
8/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.1684 of 2023
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
9/14BRMR,J
CRP.No.1684 of 2023produce 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.
10/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.1684 of 2023
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.
11/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.1684 of 2023
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.
12/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.1684 of 2023
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
13/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.1684 of 2023
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
14/14
BRMR,J
CRP.No.1684 of 2023
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.
_____________________________________
JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
02.04.2026
Dua