Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 458 (MAD)

S. Sasikumar v. Jegajothi

2013-01-21

G.RAJASURIA

body2013
ORDER: 1. C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1384 of 2011 has been filed to get set aside the order dated 21.01.2011 passed in the Memo in O.S.No.17 of 2007 by the learned District Munsif, Kovilpatti. 2. C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1385 of 2011 has been filed to get set aside the order dated 21.01.2011 passed in the Memo in O.S.No.28 of 2007 by the learned District Munsif, Kovilpatti. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner who would pilot the case of his client to the effect that there are two suits filed by the opponent namely the plaintiff, seeking the following reliefs: O.S.No.17 of 2007: "Tamil" (extracted as such) In the suit in O.S.No.17 of 2007, the revision petitioner was not one of the defendants. However, in the suit in O.S.No.28 of 2007, the revision petitioner is one of the defendants. No doubt, joint trial is being conducted. While so, after commencement of the trial, a Memo was filed seeking the following direction: "You are requested to produce the following documents which are in the custody of Defendant No.2 for the purpose of cross examination of DW-1 about the particulars of that document. 1) 12.12.2005 --- Registered sale deed in favors of Defendant No.1 executed by the Plaintiff in respect of schedule property (original). 2) 12.02.2007 --- Registered sale deed executed by Defendant No.1 in favors of Defendant No.2 in respect of schedule property (original)." (extracted as such) Whereupon, the lower Court simply ordered the revision petitioner to produce the aforesaid two documents. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, these two Civil Revision Petitions have been filed on the main ground that throwing to winds the procedures contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure, the lower Court simply on a Memo, ordered the revision petitioner to produce such documents. What I would like to observe, is that the revision petitioner who is the second defendant in O.S.No.28 of 2007, while filing the written statement, was expected to file the documents by appending the list of documents to the written statement, which the revision petitioner did not adhere to. 5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, in all fairness, would submit that no doubt, at the time of adducing evidence by his client, he would produce the same. 5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, in all fairness, would submit that no doubt, at the time of adducing evidence by his client, he would produce the same. Then, the question would arise as to how straightaway any document without specifying it in the list of documents appended to the written statement, could be filed at all. Naturally, he should seek permission of the Court for such filing of document. Wherefore, considering the pros and cons of the matter and by way of shortening the procedure, the lower Court directed the revision petitioner to produce the documents. 6. Further, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, as a final submission, would put forth and set forth his argument to the effect that the petitioner is a defendant only in O.S.No.28 of 2007 and not in O.S.No.17 of 2007 and in such a case, the lower Court was not justified in directing the revision petitioner to produce the documents for the purpose of enabling the plaintiff to prosecute his case as against the defendant in that O.S.No.17 of 2007. 7. Such argument made by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner fails to carry conviction with this Court for the simple reason that the joint trial is being conducted and in such a case, I could see no illegality in the order passed by the lower Court in directing the revision petitioner to produce those documents. 8. No doubt, the plaintiff as well as the defendant should have meticulously conducted themselves adhering to the punctilious of the Court procedures and that too, in concinnity with the methodicalness in filing the documents at the appropriate stage, but that has not been done. Wherefore, in the interest of justice, the lower Court passed the order in the Memo directing the revision petitioner/second defendant to produce those documents which the revision petitioner himself relies upon. In such a case, I could see no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the lower Court warranting interference in revision. 9. On balance, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.