JUDGMENT :- 1. Defendants 1, 3 and 4 in O.S.No.7310 of 2010 on the file of the IV Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Chennai are the revision petitioners. 2. Respondents 1 to 5 originally filed the suit on the file of this court in C.S.No.824 of 2008 for a declaration that the entire election process of the first defendant as conducted by the second defendant for the year 2008-2011 is vitiated by fraud, manipulation and irregularities and to declare the same as void and for injunction. The case of respondents 1 to 5 as seen from the plaint was that the election conducted by the first and second defendants is vitiated by various irregularities and there were large scale manipulations in sending the postal ballots and receipt of postal ballots and non-members of the association for whom ballots were sent/allowed to vote and ballots were despatched to same persons more than once. Though various other irregularities have been stated in the plaint, respondents 1 to 5 attacked the election process only on the grounds stated above. 3. The revision petitioners filed detailed written statement denying all the allegations and during the pendency of the suit before this court, respondents 1 to 5 filed O.A.Nos.946 to 948 of 2008 for injunction and those applications were dismissed by order dated 3.9.2008 and appeals in O.S.A.Nos.333 to 335 of 2008 were filed and the Division Bench of this court also dismissed the appeals and observed that the ballot papers including postal ballots polled in the election are absolutely necessary for the disposal of the suit and directed the second defendant to preserve the ballot papers including the postal ballots which were polled in the election until the disposal of the suit and subject to any order passed in that suit. This order of the Division Bench was challenged in S.L.P.Nos.16645 to 16647 of 2009 and the same were also dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court. This order of the Division Bench was challenged in S.L.P.Nos.16645 to 16647 of 2009 and the same were also dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court. Thereafter, respondents 1 to 5 preferred application in A.No.2431 of 2009 for direction to defendants 2 to 4 and revision petitioners 3 and 4 herein to deposit the documents into this court and that was dismissed by this court after recording the undertaking given by the revision petitioners herein to comply with the order passed by the Division Bench of this court in O.S.A.Nos.333 to 335 of 2008 and giving liberty to respondents 1 to 5 to summon the documents at the appropriate stage. Thereafter, another application in A.No.545 of 2010 was filed by respondents 1 to 5 for a direction to the second defendant, the sixth respondent herein to deposit the documents with the Registrar General of this court and that was allowed and the second defendant viz., the sixth respondent herein was directed to produce before the Registrar General of High Court in a sealed cover whatever documents kept by him in custody in pursuance of the order passed in O.S.A.Nos.333 to 335 of 2008 and in compliance of the said order, the sixth respondent herein also appeared to have deposited the documents in a sealed trunk with the Registrar General of this court. 4. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the City Civil Court due to change in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court and re-numbered as O.S.No.7310 of 2010 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC IV), Chennai and trial has commenced and PW1 was examined and cross-examined. At that time, respondents 1 to 5 filed I.A.No.40 of 2010 under Order X Rule 1 read with Order XI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure to permit them to inspect the documents produced by the sixth respondent herein and kept in the sealed trunk stating that those documents are crucial for the conduct of the trial and only after going through the documents, they can proceed with the further examination of the witnesses. That application was allowed by the court below and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed by the revision petitioners. 5. That application was allowed by the court below and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed by the revision petitioners. 5. Mr.T.V.Ramanujun, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petition filed under Order XI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable as the documents were not referred to in the written statement filed by the revision petitioners and only those documents which were referred to in the pleadings can be inspected and therefore, the petition filed under Order XI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable. He further contended that in election matters, the ballot papers are considered to be sacrosant and the secrecy of the ballot papers has to be maintained and under the guise of inspection of the documents, respondents 1 to 5 are attempting to know the contents of the ballot papers which cannot be permitted under law and already respondents 1 to 5 are having details about the documents and they also marked those documents and the revision petitioners have also marked certain documents during the cross-examination of PW1 and hence, there is no need to permit the petitioners to inspect the documents. He further submitted that no case has been made out by respondents 1 to 3 to have an inspection of the documents and the case of respondents 1 to 5 as seen from the plaint that they are attacking the election mainly on the ground that non-members of the association, for whom ballot papers were sent, were allowed to vote and postal ballots were depsatched to the same person more than once and even in the plaint, they have given the details in respect of those two allegations and therefore, there is no necessity to inspect the documents as the plaintiffs are aware about those details and without appreciating the same, the court below allowed the application. He further contended that no acceptable reason has been stated by the court below for allowing the application except by stating that the issue can be solved by inspecting the postal ballots and postal covers received and other connected records and therefore, the order of the court below is liable to be set aside. He further contended that no acceptable reason has been stated by the court below for allowing the application except by stating that the issue can be solved by inspecting the postal ballots and postal covers received and other connected records and therefore, the order of the court below is liable to be set aside. He also relied upon the judgments in 1) BAGYALAKSHMI v. SRINIVASA (AIR 1960 MADRAS 510) 2) RAM SEWAK YADAV v. HUSSAIN KAMIL KIDWAI AND OTHERS ( AIR 1964 SC 1249 ) 3) M.CHINNASAMY v. K.C.PALANISAMY ( (2004) 6 SCC 341 ) 6. On the other hand, Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 submitted that revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and there is no error on the face of the record and the court below has not committed any irregularity in allowing the application filed by respondents 1 t 5. Having found that the documents are required for the purpose of conducting the case, the application was allowed by the court below and as a matter of fact, this court also held in O.S.A.Nos.333 to 335 of 2008 that the ballot papers including postal ballots polled in the election are absolutely necessary for the disposal of the suit and directed the second defendant to preserve the ballot papers including the postal ballots which were polled in the election until the disposal of the suit and therefore, to bring to the notice of the court about the irregularities committed by the revision petitioners and the sixth respondent in the conduct of the election, the inspection is necessary and only after going through the documents, respondents 1 to 5 can lead further evidence and they can effectively cross-examine the witnesses to be examined on the side of the revision petitioners and therefore, the order of the court below cannot be interfered with. 7. Heard both the counsels. 8. Respondents 1 to 5 have filed application for inspection of the documents produced by the sixth respondent herein and it has been made clear from the order of the court below that they want to see and peruse the postal ballot papers and the ballot papers and other connected records. 7. Heard both the counsels. 8. Respondents 1 to 5 have filed application for inspection of the documents produced by the sixth respondent herein and it has been made clear from the order of the court below that they want to see and peruse the postal ballot papers and the ballot papers and other connected records. The court below has also observed that the main allegation made by the plaintiffs are non-members of the association, for whom ballot papers were sent, were allowed to vote and the postal ballot papers were despatched to the same persons more than once. Further, respondents 1 to 5 have requested the Election Committee the sixth respondent to furnish thirteen documents and those documents were produced by the sixth respondent and for the purpose of proving their case, they wanted to inspect the documents. 9. Before going into the factual aspects, we will have to see the law on this aspect. In the judgment reported in (2004) 6 SCC 341 cited supra, it has been held as follows:- "Inspection of ballot papers can be ordered when in the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case, the Tribunal finds it necessary to so direct in the interest of justice. Discovery and inspection of documents with which the civil court is invested with power under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit may be applied but such an order would not be granted as a matter of course having regard to the insistence upon the secrecy of the ballot papers. Such an inspection may be ordered when two conditions are fulfilled: (i) that the petition for setting aside an election contains an adequate statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies in support of his case; and (ii) the Tribunal is prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties inspection of the ballot papers is necessary." 10. In the decision reported in AIR 1964 SC 1249 cited supra, the Honourable Supreme Court in a similar circumstance, has held as follows:- "An election Tribunal has undoubtedly the power to direct discovery and inspection of documents within the narrow limits of 0.11, Code of Civil Procedure. In the decision reported in AIR 1964 SC 1249 cited supra, the Honourable Supreme Court in a similar circumstance, has held as follows:- "An election Tribunal has undoubtedly the power to direct discovery and inspection of documents within the narrow limits of 0.11, Code of Civil Procedure. Inspection of documents under 0.11, Code of Civil Procedure may be ordered under rule 15, of documents which are referred to in the pleadings or particulars as disclosed in the affidavit of documents of the other party, and under rule 18(2) of other documents in the possession or power of the other party. The Returning Officer is not a party to an election petition, and an order for production of the ballot papers cannot be made under 0.11 Code of Civil Procedure. But the Election Tribunal is not on that account without authority in respect of the ballot papers. In a proper case where the interests of justice demand it, the Tribunal may call upon the Returning Officer to produce the ballot papers and may permit inspection by the parties before it of the ballot papers; that power is clearly implicit in Ss. 100(1)(d)(iii), 101, 102 and rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. This power to order inspection of the ballot papers which is apart from 0.11 Code of Civil Procedure may be exercised, subject to the statutory restrictions about the secrecy of the ballot paper prescribed by Ss. 94 and 128(1). .... By the mere production of the sealed boxes of ballot papers before the Election Tribunal pursuant to its order the ballot papers do not become part of the record and they are not liable to be inspected unless the Tribunal is satisfied that such inspection is in the circumstances of the case necessary in the interests of justice. .... .... By the mere production of the sealed boxes of ballot papers before the Election Tribunal pursuant to its order the ballot papers do not become part of the record and they are not liable to be inspected unless the Tribunal is satisfied that such inspection is in the circumstances of the case necessary in the interests of justice. .... An order for inspection may not be granted as a matter of course: having regard to the insistence upon the secrecy of the ballot papers, the Court would be justified in granting an order for inspection provided two conditions are fulfilled: (i) that the petition for setting aside an election contains an adequate statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies in support of his case; and (ii) the Tribunal is prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties inspection of the ballot papers is necessary, But an order for inspection of ballot papers cannot be granted to support vague pleas made in the petition not supported by material facts or to fish out evidence to support such pleas. The case of the petitioner must be set out with precision supported by averments of material facts. To establish a case so pleaded an order for inspection may undoubtedly, if the interests of justice require, be granted. But a mere allegation that the petitioner suspects or believes that there has been an improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes will not be sufficient to support an order for inspection." 11. Therefore, as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court referred to above, an order for inspection cannot be granted by the courts unless the court is, prima facie, satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties, inspection of the ballot papers is necessary. Further, inspection cannot be ordered to support vague pleas or to fish out evidence in support of such pleas. 12. As stated supra, the basis on which the suit was filed by respondents 1 to 5 was that the non-members of the association were allowed to vote and postal ballot papers were sent more than once and there were irregularities in the receipt of postal ballot papers. 12. As stated supra, the basis on which the suit was filed by respondents 1 to 5 was that the non-members of the association were allowed to vote and postal ballot papers were sent more than once and there were irregularities in the receipt of postal ballot papers. Mr.T.V.Ramanujun, learned Senior Counsel brought to my notice that in respect of thirteen documents, which were required by the Election Committee before the court below and stated in para 8 of the order, document No.1 is proved by Exs.P5 to P10, D1, D5 and D6. Document 2 is proved by Ex.P11 series. Document 4 is proved by Ex.P6. Documents 5 to 10 were proved by Exs.P13 and P14. The particulars for document 11 was given in Exs.D5 and D6 and therefore, there is no need to inspect the documents at this stage. As contended by the learned Senior Counsel, in this case, PW1 was examined in Chief and his cross-examination is in progress and in the chief examination, he has marked various documents as stated above and the registers regarding the list of double votes sent and names of the persons, who were not members and were permitted to vote and the names of the persons to whom ballot papers were sent more than once, were also stated in plaint and the list was also marked by the plaintiff in evidence. Therefore, when the plaintiffs were able to substantiate their case through the documents filed by them, there is no necessity to inspect the documents. Further, as stated supra, the main ground on which the election was attacked by respondents 1 to 5 was that non-members were permitted to vote and postal ballots were sent to some members more than once. The plaintiffs also filed the list of persons who were permitted to vote, who are not members and also furnished the list of persons to whom the ballot papers were sent more than once. Therefore, on the basis of the above documents, the court can come to the conclusion whether the case of the plaintiffs regarding the irregularities in the conduct of the election can be accepted or not. Further, the particulars regarding the total number of postal ballots sent, total number of votes, total number of votes polled by direct polling and through postal ballot and the postal covers received have been furnished by the revision petitioners. Further, the particulars regarding the total number of postal ballots sent, total number of votes, total number of votes polled by direct polling and through postal ballot and the postal covers received have been furnished by the revision petitioners. Therefore, to prove the allegations made in the plaint with regard to the irregularities, sufficient materials are available and to prove such allegations, the inspection of documents is not necessary. Further, the intention of respondents 1 to 5 was also made clear that they wanted to inspect the ballot papers including the postal papers. As per the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court cited supra, secrecy of ballot papers has to be maintained and without properly proving the irregularities, as per the allegations made in the plaint, respondents 1 to 5 cannot inspect the ballot papers including postal ballots. As documents were made available for the plaintiff to prove his case, in my opinion, there is no need to permit respondents 1 to 5 to inspect the documents filed by the sixth respondent. Hence, the order of the court below is set aside and the revision is allowed. The court below is directed to proceed with the case within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.