Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4552 (MAD)

S. Parvathavarthini v. K. Uthiram Pillai

2011-11-16

M.JAICHANDREN

body2011
JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 9.7.2009, made in I.A.No.5 of 2007, in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2000, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani. ( 2. ) THE petitioners in the present Civil Revision Petition are the respondents, in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2000. R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2000 had been filed by the respondent herein for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of willful default. The petitioner had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.5 of 2007, in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2000, requesting the District Munsif Court, Palani, to send for the documents, marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-142, marked in O.S.No.258 of 1999, pending on the file of the said Court. ( 3. ) THE suit, in O.S.No.258 of 1999, had been filed by the petitioners, for declaration of title and for injunction against the respondent, claiming that the petitioners had perfected their title, in respect of the suit schedule property, by way of adverse possession. However, the trial Court had rejected the request of the petitioners, by the order, dated 9.7.2009, stating that it is open to the petitioners to obtain certified copies of the documents, marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-142, in the suit, in O.S.No.258 of 1999 and to mark the same as exhibits, in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2000. ( 4. ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that the District Munsif Court, Palani, ought to have allowed the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners, in I.A.No.5 of 2007, by sending for the documents, marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-142, in O.S.No.258 of 1999, pending on the file of the said Court. Instead the trial Court had dismissed the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners, without understanding the scope and ambit of Rule 76 of the Civil Rules of Practice. THE District Munsif Court, Palani, ought to have allowed the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners in order to avoid unnecessary delay in the proceedings, in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2000. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had stated that the petitioners have filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.5 of 2007, only with the mala fide intention of delaying the proceedings, in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2000. The interlocutory application had been filed by the petitioners, only at the time of the cross examination of the respondent, in a proceedings in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2000. The interlocutory application had been filed by the petitioners, only at the time of the cross examination of the respondent, in a proceedings in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2000. He had also stated that it was open to the petitioners to apply for the certified copies of the documents, marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-142, in O.S.No.258 of 1999 filed by the petitioners against the respondent herein. Therefore, the trial Court was right in dismissing the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners, in I.A.No.5 of 2007. ( 5. ) IN view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the respondent, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause or reason to set aside the order, dated 9.7.2009, made in I.A.No.5 of 2007, in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2000, pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani. ( 6. ) WHEN it is open to the petitioners to apply for the certified copies of the documents marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-142, in the suit filed by them, in O.S.No.258 of 1999, the request made by the petitioners to the District Munsif Court, Palani, to send for the said documents, is not acceptable. It is also seen that the trial Court had held that it is not necessary for the petitioners to mark the original documents, in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2000, as they had already been marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-142, in O.S.No.258 of 1999, on the file of the said Court. As such, the Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioners is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.