Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4646 (MAD)

J. Indaram v. P. Subramania Naicker

2011-11-28

R.SUDHAKAR

body2011
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking direction to direct the Principal Sub Court, Chengalpattu to issue a certified copy of the final order dated 17.6.2005 passed in I.A.No.212 of 2002 in A.S.SR.No.6897 of 2002. 2. The direction as sought for in the revision petition cannot be granted for the following reasons:- (1) The interlocutory application said to have been filed in the year 2002 by way of I.A.No.212 of 2002 has not been prosecuted for more than 9 years. There is undue delay and laches on the part of the revision petitioner/defendant. (2) In Para 4 of the grounds, allegations have been made against the counsel without any basis. (3) In para 4 of the grounds it is stated that I.A.No.212 of 2002 was dismissed on 17.6.2005 for which no proof has been given and it is stated that it is based on oral instruction. (4) There is no letter from the counsel indicating that on verification he found that the application was dismissed on 17.6.2005. (5) It is, therefore, not clear as to whether there was any order passed on 17.6.2005 in the so-called I.A.No.212 of 2002. 3. In such circumstances, the Court below was justified in returning the Copy Application that the order and decreetal order as claimed by the revision petitioner was not found in the bundle. The Copy Application was filed on 12.10.2011. The return endorsement was made on 9.11.2011. 4. Unless an order has been passed and the Court has relevant records, it cannot be called upon to furnish a non existent order. Because the petitioner has not shown proof as to the date on which the application was filed and the date on which the application was dismissed, except stating that the revision petitioner came to know about the dismissal of the application on 17.6.2005 orally, his plea cannot be accepted. What is the actual date on which date the I.A.No.212 of 2002 was dismissed is not specified and which counsel informed to the revision petitioner about the dismissal of the application is not stated. Such a vague plea cannot be taken as a basis for ordering notice in this revision petition. 5. What is the actual date on which date the I.A.No.212 of 2002 was dismissed is not specified and which counsel informed to the revision petitioner about the dismissal of the application is not stated. Such a vague plea cannot be taken as a basis for ordering notice in this revision petition. 5. Having failed to pursue the matter sincerely from 2002 in the unnumbered appeal, the revision petitioner is trying to clutch upon the endorsement made in the copy application to revive the case which has been abandoned for long number of years. Only on account of the total callousness, lethargy, delay and laches on the part of the revision petitioner, this Court is not inclined to entertain the revision petition for any reason whatsoever. 6. Finding no merit, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.