IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.03.2022 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN C.R.P(PD).No.2339 of 2017 and CMP.No.10981 of 2017

1.Chandra

2.Rajendran

3.Venkat @ Venkatesan

4.Kesavan ..Petitioners Vs.

1.V.Venugopal @ V.Chandrasekaran

2.Gnanasoundari

3.Shenbagavalli

4.Lokeswari

5.Saratha

6.Datchayani

7.Thilagavathy

8.Dhanveer Hussain

9.Shabina Hussain ..Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the judgment and decreetal order in I.A.No.1258 of 2016 in O.S.No.149 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif, Tambaram dated

02.03.2017.

For Petitioners : Mr.Avinash Wadhwani for Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondents : No Appearance ( Names printed in cause list)

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice had been directed to the respondents, who are defendants in O.S.No.149 of 2012. Though notice to R1 to R9 issued through Court has been served on 31.07.2017, there is no appearance for the respondents. Their names have also been printed in the cause list. This would not be a deterrent to pass any orders in this Civil Revision Petition.

2.The plaintiffs in O.S.No.149 of 2012, who are the petitioners had filed the suit on the basis of assignment pattas granted with respect to Gramanatham lands to one Dhananjayan, whose legal representatives are the plaintiffs herein. The properties, for which such assignment pattas have been granted is situtated in Survey No.58/2A, now Gramanatham Survey No.58 and measures 0.03 Cents. There is also a house built in the said land. There is also yet another property in Gramanatham Survey No.58/2 for which, Patta had been granted in Patta No.432. Both the properties are situated at Sembakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk in Kanchipuram District.

3.It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners / plaintiffs that though the suit was originally instituted for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their peaceful possesion, subsequently, an amendment had been made to convert the suit to one for declaration also.

4.The defendant, who had raised an issue with respect to assignment Pattas granted to the plaintiffs had claimed that Patta had also been granted to him for the same Gramantham lands.

5.These issues are to be decided in the course of the trial in the suit.

6.Trial had commenced. During the course of the trial, the plaintiffs produced as documents. Exs.A39 to A41, which documents refer to two separate assignment pattas in the name of the defendant. The petitioners were able to obtain xerox copies of those two assignment pattas, which were in the name of the defendant. They wanted to mark the xerox copies. Though notice has been issued under Order 11 Rule 16 of C.P.C., to the defendant to produce the originals of the two documents, which they wanted to mark as Exs.A42 and A43, they were not permitted to do so. The application in I.A.No.1258 of 2016 had been filed by the plaintiffs seeking permission to mark the xerox copies but the learned District Munsif, dismissed the said application, necessitating filing of the present revision petition.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioners took the Court through the aforementioned facts and stated under Order 11 Rule 16 of C.P.C., there is a right of a party, either plaintiff or the defendant to call upon the opposite side to produce documents in their possession.

8.In the order under challlenge in the revision, the District Munsif, Tambaram had referred to Rule 75(3) of the Civil Rules of Practice and found fault with the petitioners for not having approached the competent authority probably, the jurisdictional Tahsildhar to obtain certified copies of the two assignment pattas in the name of the defendant / respondent and therefore, stated that production of xerox copies or issuance of notice under Order 11 Rule 16 of C.P.C., would not suffice to strengthen the case of the petitioners and rejected the said application.

9.Unfortunately, th