Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 3427
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. VENUGOPAL
P.S. Veerappa
Versus
Palaniammal & Another
C.R.P. (PD) No.119 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2007
Decided on : 28-07-2011
For the Petitioner:T. Murugamanickam, Advocate.
For the Respondents: No Appearance.
The main legal point established is the necessity of recording just and equitable reasons for decisions related to summoning documents in civil cases, as per Rule 75 of the Civil Rules of Practice.
Headnote:
Civil Revision - Civil Procedure - Rule 75 of the Civil Rules of Practice - The court set aside the trial court's order dismissing the application for summoning a document, emphasizing the necessity of recording just and equitable reasons for such decisions.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant filed a civil revision petition against the trial court's order dismissing their application to summon a document in a suit for permanent injunction. The defendant contended that the trial court failed to consider material facts and legal positions, resulting in an erroneous order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's dismissal of the application was based on incorrect reasons and did not address the necessity of summoning the document for a just decision in the ongoing suit for permanent injunction.
Issues: The issues revolved around the trial court's dismissal of the application to summon a document and the necessity of recording just and equitable reasons for such decisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of recording just and equitable reasons for decisions related to summoning documents in civil cases, as per Rule 75 of the Civil Rules of Practice.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, the trial court's order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to reconsider the application for summoning the document, providing due opportunities to the respective parties.
1. The Civil Revision Petitioner/Defendant has filed the instant civil revision petition as against the order dated 28.10.2009 in I.A.No.488 of 2009 in O.S.No.3198 of 2004 passed by the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi.
2. The trial court while passing the order in I.A.No.488 of 2009, dated 28.10.2009 has among other things observed that the Revision Petitioner has filed the I.A.No.488 of 2009 not in a proper fashion and moreover in the affidavit in I.A., the Revision Petitioner/Defendant has prayed for summoning the Will dated 8.5.1998 bearing document No.12 entered in Book No.3, Volume-51, Page Nos.47 to 51 from the Sub Registrar Office, Paramathi and that he has not spelt out as to whether the settlement deed dated 27.5.1968 is in whose possession and who has produced the same before the court, etc. Also, the trial court has observed that the Revision Petitioner has not produced the 27.5.1968 settlement deed and as such the plea that the same has to be compared with that of the Will dated 8.5.1998 cannot be accepted. Further, the petitioner has not filed any application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and he has not informed his readiness or willingness to bear the expenses to be incurred thereto and resultantly, dismissed the application without costs.
3. Assailing the said order of dismissal of the trial court dated 28.10.2009 made in I.A.No.488 of 2009 in O.S.No.3198 of 2004 on the file of the trial court, the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner urges before this court that the order of the trial court in I.A.No.488 of 2009 suffers from material irregularities and further the trial court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in Law.
4. Advancing his arguments, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner that filing of an application for sending the document to an expert opinion will arise only at the time of final stage of the trial of the case by means of projecting an application thereto and in the instant case, the stage has not been set for adopting such a course.
5. Lastly, the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner is that the stage of sending the document to an Expert has not arisen, because, only after the document is marked as an exhibit, consequential application of such nature can be entertained. Apart from the general denial of the plaint allegations, the Revision Petitioner/Defendant has admitted that his father has executed a settlement deed dated 27.5.1968 in favour of his mother.
6. In short, the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner contends that the trial court while dismissing the I.A.No.488 of 2009, dated 28.10.2009 has not taken into account the material facts and the legal position into consideration which has resulted in an erroneous order being passed against the Revision Petitioner/Defendant.
7. Admittedly, the Respondents/Plaintiffs have filed the present suit in O.S.No.3198 of 2004 on the file of Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi praying for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the Revision Petitioner/defendant or his men from any way interfering with the plaintiff's enjoyment of the suit property, etc.
8. The Revision Petitioner/Defendant has filed a detailed written statement contending that the matter is in the stage of part heard and P.W.1 has been examined in cross examination in part. At that point of time, the Revision Petitioner/Defendant has projected the present I.A.No.488 of 2009 to send for documents as per Rule 75 of the Civil Rules of Practice.
9. A perusal of affidavit in I.A.No.488 of 2009 filed by the Revision Petitioner/defendant indicates that the Revision Petitioner/defendant has made an averment that the respondents/plaintiffs mentioned in the plaint that Chellappa Gounder has written a Will in their favour on 8.5.1998 by means of a document and the same has been denied by him by stating that the signature in the said W
