Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4526 (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.10216 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 passing of an order by the trial Court to issue summons to the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch IX Team, Chennai to produce the certified copies of the documents mentioned in the application and to file the same before the Court. 2. The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.10216 of 2008 has inter alia opined that proper perspective reasons have been assigned by the revision petitioner in the affidavit filed in I.A.No.10216 of 2008 and has come to a conclusion that there is no need to issue summons to the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch IX Team, Chennai and resultantly dismissed the said application. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/first defendant contends that the police records are very much relevant for proving the character of the respondent/plaintiff and that those records have come into existence pursuant to the directions issued by this Court and necessarily P.W.1 has to be cross examined in regard to the criminal proceedings and necessary questions will have to be put to him and this aspect of the matter has not been looked into by the trial Court in proper perspective and prays for allowing the said interlocutory application and this revision petition in the interest of justice. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contends that summons cannot be issued to the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch IX Team , Chennai to produce the documents mentioned in the application and that the revision petition has to be dismissed since the petitioner has not adduced proper reasons in the I.A.No.10216 of 2008 for allowing the same. 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. The pith and substance of the contentions of the revision petitioner/first defendant is that it is the endeavour of the revision petitioner/first defendant to demonstrate before the trial Court as to how the records have been tempered in other proceedings between the parties including the vakalat of the revision petitioner and also the order of the High Court while ordering for police investigation and therefore prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice. 7. A perusal of the plaint in O.S.No.4341 of 1994 reveals that the respondent/plaintiff has sought for a relief of specific performance against the civil revision petitioner/first defendant and also a relief of permanent injunction. Nearly 14 years have lapsed from the date of filing of the suit, in law, a party/litigant is entitled to produce the best evidence to substantiate his case. This cannot be prevented. Hence to provide an opportunity to the civil revision petitioner/first defendant to prove his case, this Court allows this civil revision petition in the interest of justice by setting aside the order of the trial Court passed in I.A.No.10216 of 2008 in O.S.No.4341 of 1994. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.10216 of 2008 in O.S.No.4341 of 1994 dated 19. 2008 is set aside. The civil revision petitioner is directed to take further steps diligently in the matter in accordance with 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 the 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.