ORDER: LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. This Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 30.10.2023 in IA.No.250 of 2022 in OS.No.98 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal. 2. Heard Sri T.Sharath, learned counsel for revision petitioner, and Sri K.R.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for respondent. 3. The petitioner is defendant and the respondent is plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 4. Concisely stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of oral Agreement of sale dated 05.07.2021 and also for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property against the defendant. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 4. Concisely stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of oral Agreement of sale dated 05.07.2021 and also for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property against the defendant. In the plaint, it was averred that the defendant is the owner of suit schedule property; that one Alluri Anuradha is the General Power of Attorney holder of the defendant; that the plaintiff and her parents have good acquaintance with GPA holder of the defendant; that earlier, the said GPA holder of the defendant sold Plot No.11 to mother of the plaintiff and the suit schedule property is adjacent to the said plot; that the said GPA holder of the defendant along with her sister approached the plaintiff’s father and offered to sell the suit schedule property owned by the defendant for a consideration of Rs.25,65,000/-; that pursuant to the oral agreement of sale, the father of the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs in cash as advance/part sale consideration on 05.07.2021 and a receipt dated 05.07.2021 was also issued acknowledging receipt of said amount; that the father of plaintiff approached the defendant several times to register the sale deed by collection of balance sale consideration, but the defendant postponed the same on personal inconvenience; that the father of plaintiff was constantly pursuing to conclude the sale deed by paying balance sale consideration; that there are whatsapp messages with GPA holder regarding sale transactions upto 14.08.2021, however, thereafter she stopped responding to the request for the reasons best known to her; that legal notice dated 20.08.2021 were issued to defendant and also his GPA holder to come forward and execute registered sale deed by collecting balance sale consideration and the same were received by them on 21.08.2021; that there was exchange of legal notice and reply notice between the parties; and ultimately, as there was no response from the defendant’s side to perform his part of obligation, the plaintiff filed the suit. 5. 5. The defendant entered appearance and served a notice dated 03.12.2021 to counsel for plaintiff under Order XI Rule 17 CPC to produce the whatsapp messages sent to the defendant and his GPA holder for the period specified therein, to which a reply notice dated 19.12.2021 was issued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, contending that defendant and his GPA holder also possessed those whatsapp messages since they are recipients of the same and hence, again producing the same for inspection cannot serve any purpose. He further contended that the whatsapp messages available with the father of plaintiff will be used, if required, during the course of evidence to test the veracity of the defendant by way of confrontation. Thereafter, counsel for defendant filed a memo dated 20.12.2021 along with whatsapp messages exchanged between the parties. In response, counsel for plaintiff filed reply memo dated 05.01.2022 contending that the whatsapp messages relied upon by the defendant are fabricated and therefore, the same are denied. It was further stated therein that as held by three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Infra Services Ltd Vs. Quippo Infrastructure Ltd (SLP(C).No.8636 of 2021), no evidentiary value can be attached to whatsapp messages. 6. Subsequently, the defendant filed an application in IA.No.250 of 2022 under Order XI Rule 21 CPC to dismiss the suit, in view of failure on part of the plaintiff to comply with notice given for inspection of documents. 7. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it was averred that the counsel for plaintiff issued reply notice to the notice issued by counsel for the defendant declining to produce the whatsapp messages and later, the defendant himself filed memo dated 05.01.2022 enclosing the whatsapp messages exchanged between the parties, which clearly suggest that sale transaction is more than what is mentioned in the suit and as such, the suit does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of trial Court. It was further averred that upon service of notice to produce, a party is bound to produce the documents admitted to be in his/her possession, however, the plaintiff failed to comply with the same and thus, prayed to dismiss the suit in terms of Order XI Rule 21 CPC. 8. It was further averred that upon service of notice to produce, a party is bound to produce the documents admitted to be in his/her possession, however, the plaintiff failed to comply with the same and thus, prayed to dismiss the suit in terms of Order XI Rule 21 CPC. 8. Counter is filed by the plaintiff inter alia contending that whatsapp messages which defendant is relying upon do not have any evidentiary value and the same are fabricated to suit the advantage of the defendant and hence, the same cannot be taken into consideration; that in response to memo dated 03.12.2021, a reply was given by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that inspection of whatsapp messages cannot serve any purpose and that the same may be used, if required, during the course of evidence to test the veracity of the defendant by way of confrontation and thus, the same cannot be produced at this juncture for inspection. It is further averred that still, if the defendant wants to inspect those documents, he has to make an application seeking inspection of documents under Order XI Rule 18 CPC and without following the procedure as stipulated, the defendant cannot file an application under Order XI Rule 21 CPC to dismiss the suit. It is finally contended that the Court has not passed any order to be complied with by the plaintiff, therefore, the question of failure on the part of the plaintiff to comply with the order of the Court does not arise and hence, prayed to dismiss the application. 9. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 30.10.2023 dismissed the application with an observation that no case for dismissal of the suit is made out as not only the compliance of the order of the Court has been made out, but also because the law does not contemplate dismissal of suit if there is non-compliance of Order XI Rule 14 CPC and that admittedly, the plaintiff has got issued reply notice to the notice issued by the defendant and as such, it cannot be said that the plaintiff failed to reply to the notice got issued by the defendant. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant filed the present Revision Petition. 10. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant filed the present Revision Petition. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court erred in not deciding the issue relating to pecuniary jurisdiction before passing any order; that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that when the plaintiff himself admitted that he is in possession of certain documents, his failure to produce the same before the Court when called upon calls for adverse inference against the plaintiff. Learned counsel further contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate the discretion vested in it while dealing with the provision Order XI Rule 16 CPC and erroneously dismissed the application filed under Order XI Rule 21 CPC. By contending thus, learned counsel prayed to allow the Revision Petition. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that the trial Court has appreciated the facts of the case from a proper perspective and having come to conclusion that Order XI Rule 21 CPC does not attract the present case as there is no willful attempt to discharge the order of the Court or non-compliance of order of the Court by the plaintiff, has rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel further contended that no illegality or irregularity is pointed out in the impugned order by the revision petitioner/defendant warranting interference thereof and hence, prayed to dismiss the Revision Petition. 12. For proper adjudication of the subject issue, it is apt to refer to Order XI Rules-15, 18 and 21 CPC. 13. Order XI Rule 15 CPC provides that a party to a suit is entitled to give notice to the other party calling upon him to produce the document(s), which is/are referred to in the pleadings or affidavit, for inspection and to permit him to take copies thereof. 14. Order XI Rule 18 CPC provides that if a party to the suit serves notice to the other party under Rule 15, and the served party omits to give such notice of a time for inspection or objects to give inspection, or offers inspection elsewhere than at the office of his pleader, the Court may, on the application of the party desiring it, make an order for inspection in such place and in such manner as it may think fit. 15. 15. Order XI Rule 21 CPC provides that where any party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatories, or for discovery or inspection of documents, the suit is liable to be dismissed if the defaulting party is plaintiff and defence can be struck off if the defaulting party is defendant. 16. In the present case, the defendant has only issued notice to the plaintiff in terms of Order XI Rule 15 CPC and directly, filed an application under Order XI Rule 21 for dismissal of the suit, bypassing filing of an application under Order XI Rule 18 CPC. 17. Order XI Rule 21 CPC clearly specifies that only in case of failure to comply with an order passed by the Court, an application under Order XI Rule 21 CPC is maintainable and the suit can be dismissed if the defaulting party is plaintiff and defence can be struck off if the defaulting party is defendant. 18. Admittedly, in the present case, the defendant has not filed an application under Order XI Rule 18 CPC and as such, no order of the Court exists to be complied with by the plaintiff, therefore, the application filed by the defendant is premature and is not maintainable. 19. In the light of the above legal position and having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly dismissed by the application filed by the defendant through the impugned order, giving cogent and convincing reasons, which calls for no interference by this Court. 20. In the result, this Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. 21. As a sequel, interim order dated 24.04.2024 passed in IA.No.1 of 2024 stands vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.