The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the amended Act of 1999, the mandatory rules for the plaintiff and defendant in civil litigation, and the defendant's right to not be compelled to produce the document after filing the written statement and commencement of trial proceedings.

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying this Court to set aside the Docket Order dated 18.2.2019 in unnumbered Notice in I.A.No..... in O.S.No.41 of 2017, dated 4.3.1992, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the Docket Order, dated 18.2.2019 in unnumbered Notice in I.A.No..... in O.S.No.41 of 2017, dated 4.3.1992, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi.

2. The Petitioner herein has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition against the Docket order made in Docket Order, dated 18.2.2019 in unnumbered Notice in I.A.No..... in O.S.No.41 of 2017, dated 4.3.1992.

3. The grievance of the Petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition is that the trial Judge has confused himself between the Petition filed under Order 18 of C.P.C., the right to begin the suit and notice to produce the document under Order 12 of Civil Procedure Code. The change of law on subject in Civil Procedure Code., the amendment Act, 1999 and the mandatory rules for the plaintiff and defendant is to be treated equally in a civil litigation and the Civil Procedure Code also provides the same. Order 8 Rule 1A of C.P.C.,is introduced in the Amended Act of 1999 to make it mandatory for the defendant to file the documents in Court on which he relies, however, this provision is not considered by the trial Judge. When there is a mention of the unregistered Will, dated 4.3.1992 in the statement made by the defendant, the defendant cannot get time to create a non-existent Will. When notice is given to the Court for production of the said document and the same is rejected by the trial Court, as the Petitioner sought for the original document to be produced by the defendant as per the amendment to Rule 18(1) of C.P.C., and the said document has to be produced to reach a settlement in the issue. Hence the grievance of the Petitioner is that the order of the learned Judge has to be set aside and the defendant has to be directed to produce the unregistered Will, dated 4.3.1992.

4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the suit is filed by him is for the relief of declaration declaring that the properties described in the schedule absolutely belongs to him and also for recovery of possession of the same and by directing the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the scheduled mentioned properties within the time prescribed by the Court. The Petitioner is claiming right over the property by way of relevant document which he has enclosed along with the plaint.

5. The defendant in the written statement is claiming right over the said property by way of an unregistered Will executed by his grand-mother Glory Pushpammal, dated 4.3.1992.

6. The Petitioner also argued that he is very much aggrieved by the reference made by the learned Trial Judge by stating that:

“TAMIL”

This order was passed by the trial Judge on the notice filed by the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 8 of C.P.C for which the learned trial Judge has passed an order.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and produced the materials placed before this Court.

8. The Petitioner, as plaintiff, aggrieved against the order, has preferred the present Civil Revision by stating that as per the amended C.P.C, the defendant who is claiming over certain property, has the every responsibility to produce the document along with the written statement. But he has not filed the same. Hence the notice to produce the said documents was filed by the plaintiff to the defendant. The learned Trial Judge without adhering to the provisions of the amended Act, has passed an http://www.judis.onicr.diner by stating that it is for the plaintiff to prove his case, since the suit is filed by him 5 by claiming right over the Release Deed and the declaration of the said deed also, which relief was sought for in the plaint. In s