COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.1667 of 2002: This revision arises out of the order of the Fast Track Court V, Chennai in I.A.No.15 of 2002 in O.S.No.4433 of 1999 allowing the petition under O.16, Rule 6, C.P.C. filed by the respondent/plaintiff directing the Income-tax Department to produce the records.

2.C.R.P.No.1672 of 2002: This revision is directed against the order of the Fast Track Court V, Chennai in I.A.No.28 of 2002 in O.S.No.4433 of 1999 allowing the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under O.8, Rule 9, C.P.C. thereby granting leave to file the reply statement in the suit.

3. Both the revisions arise from out of the same suit involving connected points for consideration. Hence, both the revisions were heard together and disposed of by this common order.

4. The revisions arises out of the following facts:

The plaintiff, acting as Carriers, in the course of their business, accepted Cargo from the defendants from time to time for the purposes of export. In respect of such Cargo handled by the plaintiff, on behalf of the defendants, Bills were raised and Running Account is being maintained by the plaintiff. The defendants delayed the payments due to the plaintiff inspite of several reminders. Hence, the suit for recovery of Rs.5,36,161.84 together with interest and cost thereon.

5. Admitting the transaction but denying the suit claim, defendants have filed the written statement contending that they have been making payments from time to time to the plaintiff. But the plaintiff has not given credit to those payments. Inspite of repeated requests, plaintiff had not furnished detailed Statement of Account showing the amount due. If proper account is taken and credit is given to the payments made by the defendants, it will be clear that nothing is due to the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff has not sent the correct details of the Shipping Bill, the defendants could not fulfill their export obligations resulting in loss suffered by the defendants to the tune of Rs.5,17,899. In fact only the plaintiffs are liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,73,885. In the written statement defendants have also inter alia raised the plea of limitation that the suit claim is barred by limitation.

6.I.A.No.15 of 2002: Since the plea of limitation was raised in the written statement, respondent/plaintiff filed this application to summon the Income-tax Department to produce the petition schedule mentioned documents - Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account and Income-tax Returns for the years 1996-2001. According to the plaintiffs, in the Return of Income furnished by the defendants, the defendants have admitted the amount payable to the plaintiff in the column “Sundry Creditors”. Since the Income-tax Return is the Public Document, maintained by the Income-tax Department, respondent/plaintiff has filed this application for the issuance of summons to the Income-Tax Department to produce the petition schedule mentioned documents.

7. The defendants have objected to the petition on the ground that the plaintiff is not entitled to have the investigation commenced from out of the Balance Sheet and the Returns filed by the defendants to the Income-Tax Department.

8. Considering the submissions of both sides, the learned Judge, Fast Track Court V allowed the application that the document summoned are in the custody of the Public Office-Income-tax Department and that the documents are required by the plaintiff for proof of their case.

9.I.A.No.28 of 2002: The defendants have raised the plea in the written statement that the suit is barred by limitation. According to the respondent/plaintiff the defendants have acknowledged their liability towards the plaintiff and the balance due and payable to the plaintiff and seeking to explain the same by filing written statement. The respondent/plaintiff has filed this application seeking leave to file the reply statement which was also resisted by the revision petitioners/defendants.

10. Finding that the question of limitation is a m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document