( 1 ) THIS revision petition under S. 50 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, is directed against the ruling of the Munsiff at Bellary as to admissibility in evidence of income-tax assessment orders. ( 2 ) ON the application of respondent 1 herein, the learned Munsiff summoned from the Income-Tax Department, the income-tax assessment orders relating to the petitioner herein for the years 1962 to 1965. The inspector of the Income-Tax Department produced those assessment orders in a sealed cover and sought the permission of the Court of take back those orders leaving verified copies thereof. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner herein objected to the production of those orders on the ground that the Income-Tax Authorities cannot disclose nor produce nor give evidence before the Court in respect of such assessment orders. The learned Munsiff overruled that objection and held that those assessment orders were relevant and admissible in evidence. ( 4 ) MR. Suresh Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that under S. 137 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the act), as it stood before it was repealed by Finance Act, 1964 (Central Act 5 of 1964), prohibited disclosure, production before the Court and giving evidence in respect of statements made, returns furnished, accounts or documents produced, evidence given before any Income-Tax Authority, or any order of assessment made by that Authority except in the circumstances stated in that Section. ( 5 ) IT was also contended by Mr. Joshi that though S. 137 of the Act has been repealed by Central Act 5 of 1964, any right or privilege that accrued under that section to an assessee or to any person who made any statement or produced returns, or accounts or documents or gave evidence, before such Income-Tax Authority, was saved under Sec. 6 of the General clauses Act and that in spite of the repeal of S. 137, the Income-Tax authorities cannot disclose non can the Court compel production of an assessment order relating to any return made by an assessee prior to the repeal of Section 137. ( 6 ) IN support of his contention Mr. Joshi relied on the decision of venkataraman, J. , in S. V. Ramakrishna Mudaliar v. Rajabu Fathima. Bukari, AIR. 1966 Mad. 187. ( 6 ) IN support of his contention Mr. Joshi relied on the decision of venkataraman, J. , in S. V. Ramakrishna Mudaliar v. Rajabu Fathima. Bukari, AIR. 1966 Mad. 187. His Lordship took the view that corresponding to the obligation imposed by S. 137 on the Income-Tax Officer not to disclose or give evidence in relation to any assessment, there was a right of the assessee to forbid the Income-Tax Officer to give such evidence and that such right was saved by S. 6 (c) of General Clauses Act. ( 7 ) NO doubt, the above decision supports the contention of Mr. Joshi, but that decision was considered and over-ruled by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in V. V. E. Sivagami Achi v. Vs. Vr. Ve. Vr. Ramanathan Chettiar, (1967) 64 ITR. 36 (Mad. ). Veerasami J. , who spoke for the Bench, took the view that neither S. 54 of the Income-Tax Act, 1922, nor S. 137 of the income-Tax Act, 1961, created an obligation nor privilege nor-right which could be properly regarded as having been incurred, acquired or having accrued, and that disclosure or non-disclosure of certain materials by the income-Tax Authorities before the Court appears to be a matter of public policy in public interest, and especially from the stand-point of the revenue. ( 8 ) HIS Lordship added that not every obligation, however abstract, necessarily involves a corresponding right also in the abstract and that the bar on Courts really relates to the power of the Court and prohibition against any public officer disclosing such particulars is no more than forbidding him from divulging the particulars. His Lordship held that neither the bar nor the prohibition under S. 137 of the Act can be regarded at all as an obligation, in any case an obligation incurred within the meaning of S. 6 (c) of the General Clauses Act. ( 9 ) I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division bench of the Madras High Court," and I think that view should be preferred to the one taken by Venkataraman, J. , in S. V. Ramakrishna Mudaliar's case, mr. Joshi next referred to clause (a) of 3. ( 9 ) I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division bench of the Madras High Court," and I think that view should be preferred to the one taken by Venkataraman, J. , in S. V. Ramakrishna Mudaliar's case, mr. Joshi next referred to clause (a) of 3. 138 (1) of the Act as substituted by the finance Act 2 of 1967, which provides that the Central Board of Direct Taxes or any other Income-Tax Authority specified by the board may furnish or cause to be furnished to any officer, authority or body performing functions under any law as the Central Government may specify, information relating to any assessee in respect of any assessment to income-Tax as may be necessary for enabling that Officer, or authority or body to perform his or its functions under the law. Mr. Joshi argued that unless the Court is specified by the Central Government as one of the authorities to which such information can be furnished, the Income-Tax officer cannot produce assessment orders before the Court. ( 10 ) I think the above provision has no application to production of documents or to giving evidence before the Court. That provision merely enables certain Income-Tax Authorities to furnish certain information to certain officers, authorities or bodies specified by the Central Government. That provision has no reference to the power of the Court to summon any income Tax Authorities to produce certain documents or to give evidence nor does it prohibit such Income-Tax Authorities from producing documents relating to assessment summoned by the Court. ( 11 ) I think the view taken by the learned Munsiff is correct and does not call for interference in revision. In the result, this revision fails and is dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs in this petition. --- *** --- .