Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1309 (MAD)

R. Ravi v. I. Pandiyarajan

2007-04-12

S.NAGAMUTHU

body2007
Judgment :- Considering the limited scope of the prayer in this petition, this Court proposed to dispose of the civil revision petition, even without notice to the respondent as this order will not prejudice the respondent. 2. This civil revision petition has been filed challenging the order-dated 14.02.2007, in I.A.No.651 of 2006 in O.S.No.1465 of 2004, on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Dindigul. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.1465 of 2004 on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Dindigul, against the petitioner herein for declaration of title, for injunction and for other related reliefs. During the trial of the suit, the respondent herein has filed I.A.No.651 of 2006, before the lower Court under Order 16 Rule 1 C.P.C., requesting the Court to issue summons to the Tahsildar, Dindigul and to the Village Administrative Officer, Kuvanathur Village, to examine them as witnesses on his behalf. The petitioner herein has filed a counter before the lower Court wherein, he has stated that according to the plaint averment, Second Item of the suit property was purchased by the father of the plaintiff on 19.08.1950, and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same; whereas, in the affidavit filed in support of application, the respondent herein has stated that the suit property is Nathan Promboke. He has further stated that by summoning these two witnesses, the respondent is trying to prove that the land as Natham Promboke which is against the pleading. The learned counsel has further stated that the revenue records being public records, should not be summoned to the Court unless the conditions stipulated in Rule 75 of the Civil Rules of Practice are satisfied. According to him, if only certified copy has not been made available, then only the original documents could be summoned. Considering the rival contentions made by both the parties, the learned District Munsif, by an order dated 14.02.2007, has allowed the said application. It is the said order which is under challenge in this civil revision petition. 4. According to him, if only certified copy has not been made available, then only the original documents could be summoned. Considering the rival contentions made by both the parties, the learned District Munsif, by an order dated 14.02.2007, has allowed the said application. It is the said order which is under challenge in this civil revision petition. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner would be that the lower Court was not right in allowing the application, in view of the fact that the respondent herein is trying to establish that the suit property is Natham Porombok whereas, according to the plaint averment it is a private land. He would further contend that in view of the provision contained in Rule 75 of the Civil Rules of Practice, the lower Court ought not to have allowed the said application. 5. I have considered the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. I am not able to agree with both the contentions of the learned counsel. First of all Rule 75 of Civil Rules of Practice, has no application to the facts of the present case as the prayer in the application itself is not for summoning of any document but to summon the witnesses only. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in the plaint itself, it is admitted that the suit property is Natham Poromboke and the respondent is trying to introduce a new case with reference to the nature of the classification of the land by examining the witnesses also cannot be accepted at this stage. Whether the purchase was made by the father of the plaintiff on the footing that the property was a Natham Poromboke or the same was a patta land are all to be canvased before the lower Court. It is always open to the parties to choose their own witnesses to examine so as to prove their case. It cannot be prevented by the other parties. If it is the case of the petitioner, that by summoning these witnesses, the respondent is trying to bring on record some irrelevant evidence, it is always open to the petitioner to raise objections regarding the irrelevancy of the questions before the lower Court with a prayer not to record the same. It cannot be prevented by the other parties. If it is the case of the petitioner, that by summoning these witnesses, the respondent is trying to bring on record some irrelevant evidence, it is always open to the petitioner to raise objections regarding the irrelevancy of the questions before the lower Court with a prayer not to record the same. For this reason, the right of the respondent to examine his own witnesses cannot be denied. 6. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that in the application, the prayer is only to summon the witnesses and not to produce any document; but the learned II Additional District Munsif in the impugned order has directed the witnesses to produce the documents, which is beyond the scope of the prayer made in the application. 7. I have considered this contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. When a witnesses comes to Court, there is no legal bar for him to come with any document to refresh his memory to give evidence as provided under Section 159 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the witnesses summoned in this case are at liberty to bring any register from the respective Office and to give oral evidence by going through the said register by way of refreshing their memory. But the lower Court cannot summon those documents in view of the bar contained in Rule 75 of the Civil Rules of Practice. In that view of the matter, that part of this order of the lower Court directing the witnesses to produce the documents alone requires modification. Instead of directing for production of documents in Court, this Court can very much while summoning the witnesses indicate that they should come with relevant registers to give oral evidence by perusing the same. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The order of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Dindigul dated 14.02.2007 made in I.A.No.651 of 2006 in O.S.No.1465 of 2004, is hereby confirmed to the extent holding that summoning the witnesses is correct. That part of the order directing the witnesses to produce the documents is modified to the effect that while summoning the witnesses it may be indicated to the witnesses to come with relevant registers to give oral evidence by perusing the same. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P is closed.