Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2314 (MAD)

Armand Dela Victorire v. Claire Josephine Carnot

2012-06-07

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 14.10.2009 passed in I.A.No.411 of 2009 in O.S.No.24 of 2007 (Originally O.S.No.313 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Sub Judge at Pondicherry before transfer) passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, this civil revision petition is focused. 2. Heard both. 3. The facts as stood uncurtained in this matter could be encapsulated thus: Both sides in unison would put forth and set forth the factual position without any contradiction as follows: The plaintiffs got marked certain documents during trial and those documents are photo copies of letters. Subsequently, the same plaintiffs filed I.A.No.411 of 2009 under Order XI Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC with the following prayer: "To direct the respondent/defendant herein to produce the original of documents (26) to (30) mentioned in the chief examination of the petitioner and enumerated in the list..". 4. After hearing both sides, the learned Judge passed the order, the operative portion of it would run thus: "In the result petition is allowed. The respondent/defendant is directed to produce the document Nos.26 to 30 mentioned in the petition before the court within thirty days from the date of this order. If he is not in possession of the same he is directed to file an affidavit to that effect. No cost." 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision is focused. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the lower Court? 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that after getting marked the photo copies of the letters, the plaintiffs did choose to file such an application as against the defendant, who is not in possession of the originals. Despite that, the Court passed such an order which could not be complied with. 8. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would appropriately and appositely pilot his arguments by pointing out that the order passed by the learned Judge is an innocuous one, because the said order also envisages that in the event of the defendant not in possession of those documents, it is for him to file an affidavit to that effect. 9. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would appropriately and appositely pilot his arguments by pointing out that the order passed by the learned Judge is an innocuous one, because the said order also envisages that in the event of the defendant not in possession of those documents, it is for him to file an affidavit to that effect. 9. Now the learned counsel for the revision petitioner without minching words, would clearly and categorically, unambiguously and unequivocally submit that his client, namely the defendant is not in possession of the originals of the letters which were marked. If that be so, I am at a loss to understand as to what prevented the defendant to file an affidavit before the Court and by that the matter would be over. 10. My mind is redolent and reminiscent of the following maxims: (1) Lex non cogit ad impossibilia : the law does not compel to impossible ends (2) Nemo atenetur ad impossibile : No one is bound to an impossibility 11. Here the Court has not passed any order so as to compel the defendant to do something which the defendant could not do. Had the Court compelled the defendant to produce the originals of the documents, the matter would have been different, but the Court gave a wide margin to the defendant to the effect that in the event of the defendant being not in possession of the originals, he is at liberty to file an affidavit. As such the defendant is expected to file such an affidavit before the Court. Accordingly, I could see no merit in this revision. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.