Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2535 (MAD)

Thanka Bai v. T. Sasi

2014-08-11

V.M.VELUMANI

body2014
Judgment : 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside fair and decretal order, dated 30.09.2013, passed in I.A.No.335 of 2012 in O.S.No.210 of 2002, by the learned I Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai. 2. The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff, whereas the respondent herein is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.210 of 2002 on the file of I Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai. 3. The petitioner filed the suit for permanent injunction and declaration of title. Along with the suit, she filed an application for interim injunction. The respondent filed Caveat Petition before filing of the suit. According to the petitioner, the respondent has mentioned Re-survey No.379/2 in the Caveat Petition [whereas the petitioner filed the suit with regard to the property in Resurvey No.379/3 in Kollencode Village]. The petitioner filed the application for injunction, because of the Caveat filed by the respondent, the ex-parte injunction was not granted. 4. The petitioner came to know that the Caveat Petition relates to S.No.379/2. Therefore, he marked the Caveat Petition as Ex.A4. The petitioner obtained certified copy of Ex.A4 from the Court. On verification of Caveat served on the petitioner, he came to know that the respondent filed Caveat only in the property with regard to Re-survey No.379/2. Subsequently, on verification of Court records, the petitioner found out that the respondent has corrected the Caveat Re-survey Number as 379/3. Therefore, he filed I.A.No.335 of 2012 under Sections 94 and 151 of C.P.C., for taking criminal action against the respondent for tampering the Court records. The respondent filed counter denying the allegations and has stated that in all his documents of title, the Re-survey Number is mentioned as 379/3 only and the Caveat also the Re-survey Number mentioned as 379/3. No order was passed in the application and no enquiry was ordered based on the said application. On 30.09.2013, the suit was decreed as prayed for. 5. The learned Judge closed the application without giving any reasons. In the said order, the learned Judge mentioned that without prejudice to the petitioner, the application is closed. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed the present civil revision petition. 6. Heard Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent corrected the Court records without permission and knowledge of the Court. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed the present civil revision petition. 6. Heard Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent corrected the Court records without permission and knowledge of the Court. It is a serious offence and the learned Judge ought to have initiated criminal proceedings against the respondents. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following Judgment: Abraham Vs. Maria Ambrose [ 2001 (1) MLJ 571 ], wherein in paragraph No.6, it has been held as under:- "6. Having found that the respondent had tampered with the records and that he had committed perjury, the lower Court clearly erred in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner for taking criminal proceedings against the respondent. The learned Subordinate Judge has not assigned any reason whatsoever for dismissing the application excepting to state that the suit having been decreed, the application was being dismissed. By filing the application, the revision petitioner had merely drawn the attention of the Court to the impropriety committed by the respondent. On the materials available, I am satisfied that this is a glaring case of deliberate falsehood and that the Court has to direct prosecution in the larger interest of administration of justice. There is a prima facie case on a matter of substance and there is reasonable foundation for the charge and it is expedient in the interest of justice to file a complaint." 8. From the records, I find that the application under Section 94 C.P.C. was filed in the year 2012 and no enquiry was ordered and conducted as to when the alleged correction has taken place and whether any Court Officials helped the respondent for tampering the Court records or whether really the respondent made the correction after marking of said Caveat as Ex.A4. In the Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court has held that the respondent tampered with the Court records, which is a serious offence. As tampering by the respondent was proved, this Court remanded the matter to the lower Court to take action as per the Criminal Procedure Code. In the present case, there is no finding that the respondent tampered the Court records. 9. As tampering by the respondent was proved, this Court remanded the matter to the lower Court to take action as per the Criminal Procedure Code. In the present case, there is no finding that the respondent tampered the Court records. 9. After lapse of more than two years from the date of filing of application, it will not be possible to find out, who has made the correction and no useful purpose will be served by ordering enquiry to be conducted by the lower Court now. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.