Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2479 (MAD)

Indian Steel Traders v. Devi Trading Corporation

2006-09-20

S.RAJESWARAN

body2006
Judgment :- (Revision Petition filed against the order dated 9.2.2005, passed in I.A.No.20018/2004 in O.S.No.5726/2002 on the file of the XIV Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 9.2.2005, passed in I.A.No.20018/2004 in O.S.No.5726/2002 on the file of the XIV Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.5726/2002 on the file of the XIV Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,62,413/- with interest. Written statement was filed by the defendant/respondent herein and the said claim was resisted by them. Pending suit, the plaintiff filed an Application in I.A.No.20018/2004 to issue subpoena to the Commissioner of Income Tax, VIII New Block,Aaikar Bhavan, 121, Mahathma Gandhi Road, Chennai.600 034 to the Income Tax Officer concerned to produce the original return of income of the respondent-corporation. 3. A counter was filed by the defendant/respondent resisting the said Application. On 9.2.2005 the trial court passed an order dismissing the said Application. Against that order, the Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also perused the documents filed in support of the Application. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the defendant has created documents ingenuously to show as if he had delivered goods to the plaintiff for the suit amount. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is liable to return a sum of Rs.2,68,845.36 and it is only by manipulation of documents, the defendant has resisted the claim. At the time of cross-examining, D.W.1 produced on demand, some xerox copy of the return alleged to have been submitted before the Income Tax authorities. It is also submitted by the plaintiff/revision petitioner that those documents are also fabricated for the purpose of the case. Therefore, to find out the falsehood of the defendant and in the interest of justice it is necessary to issue direction to the Income Tax authorities to produce the income tax return of the defendant for the assessment years 2002 and 2003. Therefore he sought for a direction to issue subpoena. 6. Therefore, to find out the falsehood of the defendant and in the interest of justice it is necessary to issue direction to the Income Tax authorities to produce the income tax return of the defendant for the assessment years 2002 and 2003. Therefore he sought for a direction to issue subpoena. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent resisted the said claim and submitted that the allegation of manipulation is without basis and the plaintiff will have to prove his case on his own merits and not on the other documents as sought by him. 7. The trial court by order dated 9.2.2005 dismissed the Application on the ground that there was no suggestion put to D.W.1 in respect of the returns filed by him. Moreover, examination of Exs.B2 and B3 would show that the plaintiff acknowledged the goods supplied by the defendant and the plaintiff has not denied his signature in Exs.B2 and B3 and there was no objection raised by him at the time of marking those two documents. Therefore, on these grounds, the trial court rejected the contentions put forth by the plaintiff and dismissed the Application. 8. I do not find any illegality nor infirmity in the order of the trial court dated 9.2.2005. When it was not even suggested to D.W.1 that the returns filed by him are not genuine, as rightly contended by the trial court, the revision petitioner cannot succeed in praying to issue subpoena to the Commissioner of Income Tax to produce the original returns. The revision petitioner as plaintiff has to prove their case on merits with the available documents in their possession without drawing any support from the written statement filed by the defendant. In such circumstances, the trial court has rightly rejected I.A.No.20018/2004 and this court cannot interfere with the same under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as no injustice, much less grave injustice, has been caused to the revision petitioner/plaintiff. 9. In the result, the C.R.P. is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.2949/2005 is also dismissed.