K. Veerappa Gounder vs Pushpathal

Animadverting upon the order dated 28.01.2008 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram, in I.A. No. 647 of 2007 in O.S. No.

322 of 2000, this civil revision petition is focussed.

Heard both sides.

An epitome and summarisation of the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would

run thus:

The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 322 of 2000 before the Sub Court, Dharapuram. The revision petitioner/defendant entered

appearance and during the pendency of the suit he filed I.A. No. 647 of 2007 to send for the original Will, which he produced in one other suit

O.S. No. 168 of 1997 in District Munsif Court, Kangeyam. However, the trial Court dismissed the said I.A. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied

with the order of the lower Court, this revision has been filed on various grounds.

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop his argument to the effect that no harm

would be caused to the other side if such a document is sent for; but unjustifiably the trial Court rejected the prayer of the petitioner/defendant.

Whereas the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would support the decision rendered by the lower Court.

At this juncture I call up and recollect, Order 13 Rule 9(1) CPC and it is reproduced hereunder for ready reference.

Return of admitted documents.- (1) Any person, whether a party to the suit or not, desirous of receiving back any document produced by him in

the suit and placed on the record shall, unless the document is impounded under Rule 8, be entitled to receive back the same:

a) where the suit is one in which an appeal is not allowed, when the suit has been disposed of, and

b) where the suit is one in which an appeal is allowed, when the Court is satisfied that the time for preferring an appeal has elapsed and that no

appeal has been preferred or, if an appeal has been preferred, when the appeal has been disposed of....

Admittedly and indubitably, the said suit O.S. No. 168 of 1997 on the file the learned District Munsif, Kangeyam was disposed of long ago and

no appeal was also preferred as stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner himself. In such a case, if he files an application before the learned

District Munsif, Kangeyam under Order 13 Rule 9, the said Court is bound to immediately return the said document and the necessity of giving

notice to other side would not arise at all. Hence in such a case, I could see no infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court in dismissing the

said application.

I would like to direct that on the petitioner filing an application before the learned District Munsif, Kangeyam for return of the Will, the said

District Munsif shall immediately return the Will under due acknowledgement and that too after satisfying about the non appeal in the matter. The

said Sub Court, Dharapuram shall grant a period of four weeks for the petitioner to obtain such document and produce the same before it.

Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.