Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 537 (MAD)

Subramani v. Chinnayya Mudaliar & Others

2009-02-12

G.RAJASURIA

body2009
Judgment :- Inveighing the order dated 09.09.2004, passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Kancheepuram, in I.A.No.872 of 2003 in O.S.No.422 of 1999, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Both sides called absent. 3. The nut shell facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: (i) The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.422 of 1999 seeking the following relief: "a) to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any way convert the plaint schedule mentioned suit property in to House plots; b) to award the costs of this suit; and c) to pass such or other orders as may be deemed fit in the circumstances of the case." The defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement, whereupon, trial was conducted and the matter reached the argument stage. At that juncture, I.A.No.872 of 2003 was filed seeking the following relief: "To reopen the case and permit the petitioner/plaintiff to enable to examine and permit to file xerox copies of the documents dated 17.08.1998." Whereupon, the lower Court dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, this revision has been filed on various grounds as under: In the absence of the defendants having not chosen to deny the existence of the document in their counter, they themselves could have produced the said document; since they have not produced, the plaintiff has come forward to produce the xerox copy of the said document and by allowing the said document, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants; this is a matter of 2005 and this has been pending for a long time; the fact also remains that the matter was also posted for arguments. 4. A mere perusal of the counter filed by the defendants in I.A.No.872 of 2003 would not in any enure to the benefit of the plaintiff to contend that they in any manner impliedly or expressly admitted the existence of such a document as contended in their grounds of revision. 5. The records including the order of the lower Court would exemplify and demonstrate, display and disclose that in the plaint there is no averment relating to such document. 5. The records including the order of the lower Court would exemplify and demonstrate, display and disclose that in the plaint there is no averment relating to such document. The lower Court has correctly observed that in the absence of such pleadings or any reference to the document during trial on the side of the plaintiff, absolutely there was no rhyme or reason on the part of the plaintiff to file such an application for reopening the matter so as to enable him to file the xerox copy of an unregistered document. I would also incidentally like to point out that a xerox copy of an unregistered document per se is having no authenticity and that too, in the absence of any reference in the plaint, such a document cannot be allowed to be filed at the fag end of the suit after getting the plaintiff side reopened. Hence in these circumstances, I could see no merit in the revision. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. I would also like to point out that the suit pending before the lower Court, is an old one and the lower Court shall take steps to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, untrammelled and uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in disposing of this revision petition.