Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1534 (MAD)

V. Murugaiyan v. A. Kanakasabapathi Thevar

2012-03-28

R.BANUMATHI

body2012
Judgment 1. Challenge in this revision is the order dated 23.12.2009 made in I.A.No.427 of 2009 in O.S.No.29 of 2007 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs on the ground that the documents sought to be summoned are public documents and that the revision petitioners can very well obtain the certified copies. The plaintiffs are the revision petitioners. 2. The revision petitioners/plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.No.29 of 2007 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam for declaration of their title to the A Schedule property and also for consequential recovery of possession of B Schedule property and also for mandatory injunction. The 4th and 5th defendants are the District Collector, Tiruvarur and Tahsildar, Nannilam Taluk. 3. The revision petitioners are represented by counsel Mr.K.Chandrasekaran. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs. 4. The grievance of revision petitioners/plaintiffs is that during sub-division, excess extent of land was assigned to defendants 1 and 3 and because of wrong sub-division, a portion of plaintiffs' property was also included in the defendants' property. Revision petitioners/ plaintiffs alleged that the respondents/defendants got excess of three cents. In this regard, the revision petitioners filed application in I.A.No.427 of 2009 summoning of "A" register, Field Map of the said survey numbers and the old Register contending that if the originals are produced into the Court, that would reveal the true extent. The learned District Munsif dismissed the said application on the ground that the documents summoned in the application are public documents and that the revision petitioners/plaintiffs can very well obtain the certified copies and that it is not mandatory on the fifth respondent/Tahsildar, Nannilam to produce those documents. 5. As rightly pointed out by the trial Court, the documents sought to be summoned viz., (i) A Register; (ii) Field Map (iii) Old Register are all public documents and the revision petitioners/plaintiffs an very well apply for certified copies and produce the certified copies of those documents. The impugned order does not suffer from any perversity warranting interference exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned counsel for revision petitioners/plaintiffs contended that there are some overwriting in the original register and only if the originals are produce before the Court, the true facts will be known to the trial Court. 7. The impugned order does not suffer from any perversity warranting interference exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned counsel for revision petitioners/plaintiffs contended that there are some overwriting in the original register and only if the originals are produce before the Court, the true facts will be known to the trial Court. 7. Rule 75 of Civil Rules of Practice deals with production of records in the custody of a Public Officer other than a Court. As per Rule 75(3) of Civil Rules of Practice, the Court shall issue summons for production of documents only if the Court is satisfied that application for a certified copy has been duly made and has not been granted. Rule 75(3) reads as under: "No court shall issue such a summons unless it considers the production of the original necessary or is satisfied that the application for a certified copy has been duly made and has not been granted. The court shall in every case record its reasons in writing and shall require the applicant to deposit in court, before the summons is issued, to abide the order of the court, such sum as it may consider necessary, to meet the estimated cost of making a copy of the document when produced." 8. The revision petitioners/plaintiffs have not produced any document before the trial Court to show that they have also applied for certified copy and that the same was not granted. In such view of the matter, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application declining to summon the registers. 9. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. The revision petitioners/plaintiffs shall apply for certified copy of the required documents before the 5th respondent/5th defendant/ Tahsildar, Nannilam. On such copy application being filed, the 5th respondent/5th defendant/Tahsildar, Nannilam shall issue the certified copies, if those copy applications are in order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.