(CRP PD No. 883 of 2004: Petition under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order dated 27-01-2004 made in I.A. No. 1448 of 2002 in O.S. No. 42 of 1986 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.

CRP PD No. 959 of 2004: Petition under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order dated 19-12-2003 made in C.A. No. 8260 of 2003 in O.S. No. 599 of 2003 on the file of Sub-Court, Namakkal.)

The defendants 1, 4 and 6 in O.S. No. 42 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode are the revision petitioners in CRP PD No. 883 of 2004.

2. The fourth defendant in O.S. No. 599 of 2003 on the file of the Sub-court, Namakkal is the petitioner in CRP PD No. 959 of 2004.

3. The revision petitioner in CRP PD No. 959 of 2004 and the second petitioner in CRP PD No. 883 of 2004 have filed copy application in C.A. No. 8260 of 2003 praying the court below to issue certified copy of the certain documents, which was rejected, hence CRP PD No. 959 of 2004 has been filed.

4. The petitioners in CRP PD No. 883 of 2004 have filed I.A. No. 1448 of 2003 in O.S. No. 42 of 1986 seeking for a direction to summon the suit documents, which was dismissed, hence CRP PD No. 883 of 2004 has been filed.

5. Mr. Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that both the revision petitions have been filed seeking the very same relief of direction to the court below to issue certified copy of certain documents and if any one of the revision petitions is allowed, other revision petition will become infructuous, however, he submits that the court below dismissed the copy application filed in CA No. 8260 of 2003 under the wrong impression that the said documents were not marked.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the below mentioned decisions in support of his case:-

i) (Jagatbhai Punjabhai Palkhiwala and others vs. Vikrambhai Punjabhai Palkhiwala and others) AIR 1985 Gujarat 112 wherein in paragraph No. 5 and 6 it was held thus:-

"5. This reason given by the learned Trial Judge is not correct and is too technical. If the inspection of the documents could be granted by the court, there is no reason why the persons who were permitted to take inspection cannot take xerox copy of the same. The purpose of the inspection is to know and study the documents. The person who takes inspection can also take notes and even make copies of the same. In view of very large number of documents, the petitioners wanted that they may be permitted to take xerox copies of the same. Their say is that instead of taking inspection and looking at the documents by their own-eyes, they would like to have their view from the camera eye. The request for xerox copies at their own cost is reasonable. Once the Court has granted inspection, this request is merely to make that inspection more effective. By allowing the plaintiff's to take xerox copies, the Court is neither verifying nor certifying them to be true and correct copies. The Plaintiffs will be taking copies for their own purpose in order that they can make effective and detailed study and have proper consultation with their lawyers. That would not only serve the cause of the petitioners, but will also enable the Counsel to render proper assistance to the Court. Since the Court is not verifying or certifying the correctness of the copies, there is no need of the documents to have become part of the record. Since the documents happen to be in the custody of the court, the parties cannot take xerox copies of the same without permission of the Court. But that does not mean that the Court can refuse such permission only on the ground that they have not become part of the record. The reason given is fundamentally erroneous and merely technical.

6. If the xerox copies are not permitted to be taken, the purpose of the inspection will become ineffective and would be frustrated. No harm or prejudice can occur to the other side if the xerox copies are permi