Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4525 (MAD)

Sundaramoorthy v. M. C. Kalaithangam

2008-12-04

M.VENUGOPAL

body2008
Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner/petitioner/first defendant has preferred this civil revision petition as against the orders dated 19. 2008 in I.A.No.10217 of 2008 in O.S.No.4341 of 1994 passed by the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/petitioner/first defendant under Section 151 of CPC praying for an order from the Court, directing the respondent/plaintiff to surrender all original documents filed and exhibited as Exs A1 to A63 on the side of the respondent/plaintiff. 2. The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.10217 of 2008 has inter alia observed that in the main case Exs A1 to A63 have been marked and that if the certified copies of all documents mentioned in the application are relevant to the case, then the petitioner/first defendant ought to have taken steps already and since he has not taken steps and filed the present application, the same is not liable to be accepted and resultantly dismissed the said application. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/first defendant submits that when the objection is raised for not filing the original documents and when the originals are available with the respondent/plaintiff, the respondent/plaintiff is bound to file all the originals in the Court when questions are raised about the conduct and character of the respondent/plaintiff and this objection has not been taken note of by the trial Court and that the order of the trial Court in dismissing the application is unsustainable both in law and on facts and hence prays for allowing this revision petition in the interest of justice. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contends that at the time of cross examination, the respondent/plaintiff is ready to produce the originals before the trial Court to compare the same with the certified copies and that the revision petitioner cannot insist the respondent/plaintiff to file the originals and that the respondent/plaintiff is always prepared to produce the originals before the Court when ever the Court directs and therefore, prays for dismissal of the civil revision petition. 5. This Court has paid its anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and noticed their contentions. 6. 5. This Court has paid its anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and noticed their contentions. 6. On a careful consideration of the respective contentions and taking note of the fact that the respondent/plaintiff at the time of cross examination, the respondent/plaintiff is ready to produce the originals before the trial Court to compare the same with that of the certified copies, this Court is of the considered view that the present civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed in the interest of justice. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The order passed by the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.10217 of 2008 in O.S.No.4341 of 1994 dated 19. 2008 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this revision. The respondent/plaintiff is directed to produce the originals of documents of Exs A1 to A63 and after comparing the same with the certified copies, the revision petitioner/first defendant is directed to proceed with the cross examination of P.W.1 in the manner known to law. Since the suit is of the year 1994, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the main suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to report compliance to this Court. The parties are directed to cooperate with the trial Court in regard to the completion of proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs.