SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1958 Supreme(Mad) 363

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. P. V. Rajamannar, Chief Justice
K. S. Venkatesam Naidu & Sons, Madras
Versus
The State of Madras represented by the Secretary to the Government of Madras, (Public Works Department).
C.R.P. No. 1897 of 1958. (14th Agrahayana, 1880-Saka)
Decided On : 05 December 1958

Advocates:
N. Arunachalam, for Petitioner.
Respondent not represented.

Definition of privileged document.

Headnote:Evidence Act, 1872-Section 124 - Privileged documents -Held, inter-departmental correspondence is a privileged document.

       

Judgment.-

The learned City Civil Judge was right in refusing to grant the application of the petitioners in respect of the correspondence which passed between the Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer. Such inter-departmental correspondence cannot be compelled to be produced. Of course any-correspondence which passed between an officer of the State and the petitioners must be produced when summoned. The learned counsel for the petitioners explained why he wanted this correspondence. According to him this will disclose why the corrections were made in the blue print, according to which they made the furniture. It is certainly open to them to let in oral testimony of what happened at the time of the corrections and also the reason why the corrections were made. If the petitioners swear to the facts which are contained in the particulars filed by them in LA. No. 703 of 1958 on 24th August, 1958, it would then be incumbent on the Superintending Engineer or the Executive Engineer if he is giving evidence, to explain the purpose of the corrections. But I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge.

The Full Bench decision of the East Punjab High Court in GovernorGeneral-in Council v. Peer Muhammad1was relied on. The general observations made in this decision I accept. But they do not help the petitioners in this case. The decision of the learned Judge of the Jammu and Kashmir Court in Tirath Ram v. H. H. Government J. & K.2 no doubt supports the contention of the petitioners in a way but with respect to the learned Judge I am unable to accept the law as laid down by him. A communication made by one Secretary to the Government to another Secretary to the Government would certainly be a communication in respect of which privilege can be claimed ; and if the decision were to be taken as holding that such a communication is not privileged I am compelled to differ.

This Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed.

R.M. ----- Petition dismissed.



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top