Judgment :- Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the Fair and Decretal Order dated 17.06.2003 made in I.A.No.332 of 2001 and I.A.No.339 of 2002 in M.C.O.P.No.332 of 2000 on the file of Principal District Judge, Karur.) Common Order These Revisions are preferred against the Order of the Principal District Judge, Karur made in I.A.Nos.332 of 2001 and 339 of 2002 in M.C.O.P.No.332 of 2000 allowing the petitions calling for documents from the Office of the Income Tax and Commercial Tax and also directing the Revision Petitioners/Claimants to produce the Petition mentioned documents. 2. M.C.O.P.No.332 of 2000 was filed claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Crores) for the death of Ramasamy, who died in the road accident on 23.08.1999. The Revision Petitioners/Claimants have filed M.C.O.P.No.332 of 2000 alleging that Ramasamy was earning Rs.85,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Five Crores) per year by being Partner in M/s. Morvi Exports and M/s. Ram Textiles, Karur. On that basis, the Claimants/Revision Petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs.50,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Crores). 3. I.A.No.332 of 2001 was filed by the Third Respondent/United Insurance under Or.12 R.8 and Section 151 C.P.C. directing the Claimants to produce the documents - Partnership Deed of M/s. Morvi Exports, M/s. Ram Textiles and M/s. Kaliyappa Gounder and Co. and the Income Tax Assessment of Ramasamy and also Income Tax Assessment of the Firms M/s. Morvi Exports and M/s. Ram Textiles for the years 1995 -1996 to 2000-2001. In the Petition, it is alleged that though the Claimants have alleged that Ramasamy was earning Rs.85,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Five Crores) per year, the Claimants have not produced any documentary proof regarding the huge income alleged to have been earned by the deceased Ramasamy. 4. The Third Respondent/Insurance Company has filed the counter statement disputing the manner of the accident, status and the income of the deceased Ramasamy. Hence, to disprove the claim of the Claimants, the petitions were filed directing them to produce the above documents. 5. I.A.No.339 of 2002: This application was filed under R. 75 - Civil Rules of Practice to call for the documents relating to the Income Tax Assessment of Ramasamy, M/s. Morvi Exports, M/s. Ram Textiles and M/s. Kaliyappa Gounder and Co. and Profit and Loss Account of the said Firms for the years 1995-1996 to 1999-2000 from the Office of the Income Tax and Commercial Tax. 6. and Profit and Loss Account of the said Firms for the years 1995-1996 to 1999-2000 from the Office of the Income Tax and Commercial Tax. 6. Both the Applications were resisted by the Claimants/Revision Petitioners contending that the documents are not essential documents. It was submitted that the defence open to the Petitioner/Third Respondent is only those mentioned in Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 149(2) of the said Act clearly provides that the Insurer is not entitled to take any defence, which is not specified in it. The Insurer cannot take the plea of negligence or question of compensation. Even when the trial proceedings has not commenced, it is too pre-mature to file the petitions by the Insurance Company/Third Respondent. 7. The Tribunal has allowed both the Petitions finding that the documents are essential to determine the income of the deceased Ramasamy and in the interest of justice, the documents are to be called for from the Office of the Income Tax and Commercial Tax. The Tribunal directed the Revision Petitioners/Claimants to produce the documents within their custody and allowed both the Applications. 8. Aggrieved over the allowing of the Applications to produce the documents and calling for documents, the Revision Petitioners/Claimants have preferred these Revisions. 9. Contending that the scope of Or.12 R.8 C.P.C. and R.75 of C.R.P. were not properly appreciated, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that the Court below erred in calling for the documents. It is submitted that if the Revision Petitioners/Claimants do not prove the case, the Claimants would loose the case. It is further submitted that even when the trial is yet to commence, the Third Respondent/Insurance Company has hurriedly filed the Applications and the Tribunal was not right in directing the Revision Petitioners/Claimants to produce the documents and also calling for the documents from the Office of the Income Tax and Commercial Tax. 10. The Third Respondent/Insurance Company has entered appearance through the counsel. 10. The Third Respondent/Insurance Company has entered appearance through the counsel. The learned counsel, Mr.R.Mahalingam appearing for the Respondent-Insurance Company has submitted that the Claimants made a huge claim for Rs.50,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Crores) for effective and complete adjudication and for determining the correctness of the income of the deceased – Ramasamy, the documents called for are very much essential and the District Court has rightly ordered the Revision Petitioners to produce the documents and also called for the documents from the Office of the Income Tax and Commercial Tax. The learned counsel further submitted that the District Court has rightly ordered the production of the documents and the impugned order does not warrant interference exercising the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 227 of The Constitution of India. 11. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the Order directing the Revision Petitioners/Claimants to produce the Petition mentioned documents and the order calling for the Petition mentioned documents from the Office of the Income Tax and Commercial Tax suffer from material irregularity warranting interference? 12. The deceased Ramasamy is said to have been a Partner in M/s. Morvi Exports, M/s. Ram Textiles and M/s. Kaliyappa Gounder and Co. The said Ramasamy died in the road accident while he was travelling in the Ambassador Car on 23.08.1999. Ramasamy was said to be earning around Rs.85,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Five Crores) per annum. On that basis, huge claim of compensation of Rs.50,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Crores) has been claimed in M.C.O.P.No.332 of 2000. According to the Claimants/Revision Petitioners, the deceased Ramasamy was aged 50 years and being Partner in the above said M/s. Morvi Exports, M/s. Ram Textiles and M/s. Kaliyappa Gounder and Co., Ramasamy was earning more than Rs.85,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Five Crores). If he was earning such huge income, definitely Ramasamy must have been an Income tax Assessee. Likewise, the said Firms must have been assessed for the purpose of Sales Tax by the Office of the Commercial Tax. 13. The Third Respondent/Insurance Company has filed Written Statement in the Claim Petition disputing the manner of accident, status, income and the dependency of the Claimants. It is alleged that for the claim, no documents evidencing the income of the deceased Ramasamy had been produced. 13. The Third Respondent/Insurance Company has filed Written Statement in the Claim Petition disputing the manner of accident, status, income and the dependency of the Claimants. It is alleged that for the claim, no documents evidencing the income of the deceased Ramasamy had been produced. In view of the huge claim made in the Claim Petition, the Insurance Company has rightly filed the Applications to direct the Claimants to produce - i) Partnership Deed of M/s. Morvi Exports, M/s. Ram Textiles and M/s. Kaliyappa Gounder and Co.; ii) Personal Income Tax Assessment of Ramasamy for the years 1995-1996 to 1999-2000; iii) Income Tax Assessment of the Firms M/s. Morve Exports, M/s. Ram Textiles and M/s. Kaliyappa Gounder and Co. for the years 1995-1996 to 2000-2001. 14. Order 12 Rule 8 C.P.C. deals with Notice to produce documents at the time of hearing. Order 12 Rule 8 C.P.C. reads as follows: R.8 Notice to produce documents- Notice to produce documents shall be in Form No.12 in Appendix C, with such variations as circumstances may require. An affidavit of the pleader, or his clerk, of the service of any notice to produce, and of the time when it was served, with a copy of the notice to produce, shall in all cases be sufficient evidence of the service of the notice, and of the time when it was served. 15. Contending that when the trial is yet to commence, it is submitted that the Applications filed by the Third Respondent/Insurance Company are pre-mature and the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the same. It is further submitted that even if the Claimants do not produce the relevant documents to prove their claim, the award may be accordingly reduced; but the Claimants cannot be directed to produce the Income Tax Assessment, Partnership Deed and other documents. This contention has no merits. 16. Order 12 Rule 8 C.P.C. enables a party to issue Notice to the opponent to produce the documents. The Claimants having made huge claim of Rs.50,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Crores), the Third Respondent/Insurance Company was well within its rights in filing the Petitions to direct the Claimants to produce the documents and to keep itself ready for the hearing. 17. Generally speaking when filing the Claim Petitions, the Claimants are bound to produce materials evidencing the income. The Claimants having made huge claim of Rs.50,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Crores), the Third Respondent/Insurance Company was well within its rights in filing the Petitions to direct the Claimants to produce the documents and to keep itself ready for the hearing. 17. Generally speaking when filing the Claim Petitions, the Claimants are bound to produce materials evidencing the income. This is all the more so, when a huge claim of Rs.50,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Crores) has been made. If the Claimants have filed the documents along with the Petition, there would not have arisen necessity for filing the Applications directing them to produce the documents. The Petitioners could have atleast produced the document when once the Application was filed under Or.12 R.8 C.P.C. But that was not to be so. The Court has got the discretion to pass the order in considering the relevancy of the documents for determining the annual income of the deceased Ramasamy. The learned District Judge has rightly satisfied that the documents sought for are required for the purpose of determining the income of the deceased Ramasamy and for the effective disposal of the contentious issues involved in the Claim Petition. The learned District Judge has rightly found that the documents must be within the custody of the Claimants. This Court is also satisfied that the Insurance Company has made no unfair attempt to fish out the information from the documents sought to be produced. The impugned order cannot be assailed either on the ground that it is too pre-mature or on the ground that the documents are not essential. 18. Without the documents relating to the Income Tax of the deceased Ramasamy and the document from the Office of the Commercial Tax relating to the Profit and Loss Account of M/s. Morvi Exports, M/s. Ram Textiles and M/s. Kaliyappa Gounder and co. etc., there cannot be effective determination of the income of the said Firm or otherwise. The Court may have to refer only to the oral evidence. If the documents are not available before the Court, the Insurance Company may not be in a position to effectually cross examine the witnesses to be examined by the Claimants to prove the income. etc., there cannot be effective determination of the income of the said Firm or otherwise. The Court may have to refer only to the oral evidence. If the documents are not available before the Court, the Insurance Company may not be in a position to effectually cross examine the witnesses to be examined by the Claimants to prove the income. Since the documents were not produced along with the Petition, the Court has rightly called for the documents from the Office of the Income Tax and Commercial Tax and also directed the Claimants to produce the document. Hence, the impugned orders are well in accordance with Or.12 R.8 C.P.C. and Or.11 R.12 C.P.C. and Rule 75 C.R.P. The impugned orders do not suffer from any material irregularity warranting interference. These Revisions have no merits and are bound to fail. 19. Therefore, these Revision Petitions are dismissed confirming the orders dated 17.06.2003 made in I.A.No.332 of 2001 and I.A.No.339 of 2002 in M.C.O.P.No.332 of 2000 on the file of Principal District Judge, Karur. Consequently, C.M.P.No.13671 of 2003 is also dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.