Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 1861
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
Chettia Gounder @ Chettiannan
Versus
Ganesan
C.R.P.PD. No. 1329 of 2010 & M.P. No.1 of 2010
Decided on: 04-06-2013
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioner:N. Manoharan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:M.S. Palaniswamy, Advocate.
The Court emphasized the need for a liberal and lenient view in allowing applications for the production of records in the interest of justice.
Headnote:
Revision Petition - Civil Procedure - Rule 75 of the Civil Rules of Practice - 75
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner/Defendant filed a Civil Revision Petition against the order of the trial Court dismissing the application to summon documents for comparison of signatures in a financial transaction dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court failed to exercise its judicial discretion in favor of the Petitioner/Defendant and took an incorrect view by dismissing the application. The Court set aside the trial Court's order and directed the trial Court to dispose of the main suit within four months.
Issues: The main issue was the admissibility of the documents for comparison of signatures to prove the Petitioner/Defendant's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the liberal and lenient view to be adopted in favor of the Petitioner/Defendant to advance the cause of justice and provide an opportunity to prove the case.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, the trial Court's order was set aside, and the trial Court was directed to dispose of the main suit within four months.
1. The Petitioner/Defendant has filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 14.12.2009 in I.A. No.305 of 2009 in O.S. No.376 of 2005 passed by the Learned Additional District Munsif, Tiruchengode.
2. The Learned Additional District Munsif, while passing the order in I.A. No.305 of 2009 in O.S. No.376 of 2005 on 14.12.2009, has among other things categorically observed that the Petitioner (Revision Petitioner/Defendant) has not denied his signature in Ex.A1 pronote and further, he has not stated that in Ex.A1 pronote, the Respondent/ Plaintiff's signature is seen/found. Further, no explanation has been offered by the Petitioner (Revision Petitioner/Defendant) that the documents, which are sought to be summoned, contain the Respondent/Plaintiff's signature and it is not explained as to how the documents mentioned in the petition (whether it covers within the date mentioned therein) will help to prove the case of the Revision Petitioner/Defendant and also, the documents sought to be summoned are not disputed documents and consequently, dismissed the application without costs.
3. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant submits that the trial Court passed the impugned order in I.A. No.305 of 2009 in O.S. No.376 of 2005 on 14.12.2009 against law, weight of evidence and all probabilities of case.
4. Further, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant that the Petitioner/Defendant had financial transaction with Sri Bakiyalakshmi Finance and dues to the Finance were settled and some blank pronotes were not returned and the said pronotes were misused to file the present suit.
5. Advancing his arguments, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant that the Petitioner/Defendant produced some documents where it has been written in pencil "Keeral Chettiya gounder", which would point out that the Respondent/Plaintiff was in the habit of getting blank pronotes and in order to prove the said fact, the documents mentioned in I.A. No.305 of 2009 are necessary to prove the version/project the case of the Petitioner/Defendant.
6. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant urges before this Court that the comparison of the documents could be made only with the help of admitted signature. Since the documents sought for in I.A. No.305 of 2009 are contemporaneous in nature, the same are required to be summoned by the Court of law in the interest of justice to arrive at a just and fair conclusion/finding in the main suit.
7. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant invites the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W.1 (Cross-examination) wherein the Respondent/Plaintiff has deposed before the trial Court that in the three blank pronotes shown to him do not belong to him and the signature found in the pronotes and the signature found in the leave letters of his office can be compared with, for which he has no objection.
8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff that as per the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the debtor has affixed his signature and thumb impression in the pronote, the holder of the said pronote is entitle to fill up the same and further, the Petitioner/Defendant has not stated in the application as to what kind of evidence has been there in regard to the documents or as to how it was given at Forest Ranger office or whether the signature found therein belong to the Respondent/Plaintiff etc.
9. The Learned counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff has supported the order of the trial Court in dismissing the application in I.A. No.305 of 2009 in O.S. No.376 of 2005 and reiterated the same before this Court.
10. At this juncture, this Court, for better and fuller appreciation of the matter in issue, extracts Rule 75 of the Civil Rules of Practice relating to production of records in the custody of Public Officer other than the Court and the same runs as follows:-
"75. Production of
