C O M M O N O R D E R

The instant applications have been filed seeking to grant leave to the applicant to file additional documents as set out in the list of documents annexed to the Judge's Summons, to issue subpoena to the Manager, Indian Bank, Clock Tower Branch, Royapettah for production of the original cheques issued by the applicant drawn in favour of the respondent and to adduce oral evidence as listed to the schedule to the judges summons and to issue subpoena to the Manager, Indian Bank Jawahar Nagar Branch, Kolathur for production of the original cheques issued by the applicant drawn in favour of the respondent and to adduce oral evidence as listed to the schedule to the judges summons.

2.The suit had been filed seeking for a recovery together with interest for a sum Rs.1,77,39,706/- being the suit claim on the principal sum of Rs.1,21,25,000/- out of a total sum of Rs.2,81,25,000/- loaned by the plaintiff to the defendant.

3.Heard Mr.K.Bijai Sundar, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent Mr.C.Vidhusan.

4.Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that after the completion of pleadings and framing of issues, the suit was relegated to the learned Additional Master for recording of evidence. On completion of chief, the applicant was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the defendant. In the course of cross-examination, a question was put across to the applicant as to whether he would be willing to produce the financial statements in respect of the bank accounts, that the applicant is maintaining at the Indian Bank, Clock Tower Branch, Royapettah and Indian Bank Jawahar Nagar Branch, Kolathur for the period from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. A further question to certain information relating to a First Information Report and calendar cases, the learned counsel for the defendant had marked some documents as Exs.D1 to D6 through the applicant who was examined himself as PW1.

5.A suggestion during the cross-examination would presuppose that the dispute between the applicant and certain third parties arising out of financial transactions between them is sought to be put against the applicant/plaintiff. Hence to explain that the said transaction has nothing to do with the present suit claim, the applicant seeks to mark documents listed in Sl.Nos.1 to 15 of the list of documents annexed with the Judge's Summons. That part to the question as to whether the applicant would be willing to produce the bank statement, he would propose to mark the documents in Sl.Nos.19 and 20 of the list annexed to the Judge's Summons.

6.He would further submit during the cross-examination, it has been suggested that the cheques upon which the plaintiff claims to have made payment to the defendant was not issued to the defendant, he had sought a prayer to issue subpoena to the respective Bank Managers to produce the original cheques to substantiate his claim. He would submit that documents listed in the annexure to the Judge's Summons and also prayer to issue subpoena to the respective Bank Managers have all been necessitated in view of the suggestions put to the applicant during the course of the cross- examination. Hence, he would pray for this Court to grant the prayers as sought for in these applications.

7.Countering his arguments, Mr.C.Vidhusan, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the applications are not maintainable either in law or on facts and circumstances of the case. He would submit that all these documents were all available with the applicant at the time of filing the suit. He would further submit that he would have no objection for grant of leave for the bank statement in Sl.Nos.19 and 20 of the Judge's Summons as additional documents. He would submit that the documents sought to be marked in Sl.Nos.16 to 18 has no relevance to the issues involved in the present case, as they are Vakalath and copy applications filed by the counsels for the respective parties in a different proce