Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1875 (MAD)

P. Punithan v. Mariya Jesudasan S/o. Anthony

2021-07-09

K.MURALI SHANKAR

body2021
ORDER : The Civil Revision is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.284 of 2012 dated 11.03.2020 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Munsif, Valliyoor, dismissing the petition filed under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC. 2. The revision petitioner is the 3rd defendant and the respondents 3 and 4/plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.284 of 2012 against the revision petitioner, the respondents 1 and 2 herein and one Anthoniammal claiming the reliefs of declaration that the items 1 and 2 of the suit properties are owned by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 respectively and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants and their agents and men from any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and to declare that the settlement deed dated 04.08.2011 executed by the first defendant infavour of the second defendant and the sale deed dated 24.08.2011 executed by the third defendant as power agent of the second defendant infavour of the fourth defendant are legally invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs. 3. When the suit was pending for the defendants side further evidence, the above petition in I.A.No.1 of 2020 came to be filed under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC., directing the Tashildar of Radhapuram to produce the records and adduce evidence and the learned District Munsif, after enquiry, has dismissed the said petition vide order dated 11.03.2020. Though the said application was filed by the defendants 2 to 4, the third defendant alone has filed the present revision petition, challenging the said order. 4. The revision Petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the said petition in I.A.No.1 of 2020, has stated that the suit was posted for the defendants side evidence, that the Radhapuram Thasildhar is to be directed to produce the documents relating to the suit property and to adduce evidence and that therefore summons are to be issued for the same. The plaintiffs have filed a counter memo stating that the petitioners have not shown the list of documents sought to be produced and as to how the evidence of Radhapuram Thasildhar is necessary and relevant for the purpose of the case. The plaintiffs have filed a counter memo stating that the petitioners have not shown the list of documents sought to be produced and as to how the evidence of Radhapuram Thasildhar is necessary and relevant for the purpose of the case. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the petitioners have neither mentioned the list of documents required to be produced by the Radhapuram Thasildhar and the purpose for which Thasildhar is to be examined. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the petitioner has annexed the summons along with the application and in the summons, he has mentioned the nature of documents required to be produced. 5. In the summons attached with the petition, it is stated that Jamabanthi Settlement for S.Nos.922/2 and 922/4 of Perungudi Village, Vadakankulam, Resurvey Patta for S.No.922 of 2 and Separate Patta stands in the name of Michael Senduraiyan are to be produced. As rightly pointed out by the respondent side, no one has whispered about the said particulars either in the affidavit or in the petition. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent generally, the issuance of summons will be considered only after allowing of the petition. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has not followed the procedures contemplated under Rules 75 of Civil Rules of Practice, which deals with production of records in the custody of the public officer. 7. Rule 75(1) of Cr.P.C contemplates that the summons for the production of records in the custody of a public officer other than the Court shall be in Form No.23 and shall be addressed to the head of the department concerned. 8. Sub Rule(2) states that every application for such summons shall be made by a verified petition stating that (i) the documents or documents the production of which is required; (ii) the relevancy of the document and (iii) in case where the production of a certified copy would answer the purpose, whether application was made to the proper officer for a certified copy or copies and the result of such application. 9. Sub Rule 3 contemplates that no Court, shall issue such summons unless it considers the production of the original is necessary or is satisfied that the application for a certified copy has been duly made and has not been granted. 10. 9. Sub Rule 3 contemplates that no Court, shall issue such summons unless it considers the production of the original is necessary or is satisfied that the application for a certified copy has been duly made and has not been granted. 10. Considering the above, it is clearly evident that summons shall not been issued unless the production of the original is necessary or certified copy of the document would not be granted. Moreover, Rule 75 (3) contemplates that, order for summons for production of documents is to be granted only if it is satisfied that the application for certified copy has been made and the same has not been granted. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner have nowhere whispered that he applied for the copies and the same has been denied. 11. It is necessary to refer the decision of this Court in C.R.P.(PD).Nos. 4070 and 4071 of 2011 dated 02.04.2013 in the case of Indian Auto Gas Company Limited V.S.Radha Lakshmi Lakshmi and others. The relevant portion is extracted here under :- “Considering all these aspects, the Court below has rightly held that as per Rule 75(3) of the Civil Rules of Practice, summons shall not be issued unless the production of the original is necessary or certified copy would not be granted. Further, under Rule 76 of the Civil Rules Practice, a party may apply to the Court, where the suit is pending for the issuance of certificate to enable him to obtain certified copy of public document for being filed into Court and therefore, when the petitioner can get the certified copy from the Government , there is no need to send for those documents. Similarly, the witnesses summoned by the petitioners are not necessary to prove the contents of the documents as the documents will speak itself and the officials cannot have any personal knowledge and they will have to speak only from the documents. Hence, it is a clear abuse of process of Court and that has been filed only to drag on the proceedings and the petitioner could have filed those documents by getting certified copies from the official and hence, the Court below has rightly dismissed the Applications and I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Court below.” 12. Considering the above and the facts and circumstances of the case, the request of the petitioner to summon the Tashildar is totally unnecessary and unwarranted. The learned trial judge has observed that the petition filed by the petitioner at the fag end of the trial is a clear abuse of process of Court and that has been filed only to drag on the proceedings. In the case, the suit was filed in the year 2012 and the suit was pending for the defendant side further evidence. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner has not assigned any reason or ground as to why he has not taken the certified copies for all these period, since the filing of the above suit in 2012. 13. Considering the above, as rightly observed by the trial Court, this Court is also of the view that the petitioner with the sole intention to dragon the proceedings, has filed the petition in I.A.No.1 of 2020 and after dismissal of the same, has come forward with the present revision petition. Hence, the decision of the trial Court in dismissing the petition cannot be found fault with and consequently, this Court decides that the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of Merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.