AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 12.11.2009, made I.A. No. 956 of 2009, in O.S.
No. 399 of 2001, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Alandur.
The petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, in O.S. No. 399 of 2001, had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A. No. 956 of 2009,
praying that the trial Court may be pleased to direct the Tahsildar, Tambaram, to produce the revenue records relating to old survey No. 92/2A,
Field map sketch, Patta Nos. 2951, 2735, 2592 relating to the land in survey No. 92/2A1A1A1A1A1B Patta No. 2496 relating to the land in
survey No. 92/238A and S.L.R. and to give evidence thereon.
The trial Court, by its order, dated 12.11.2009, had dismissed the application stating as follows:
It is evident from records that the suit is of the year 2001 and DW1 was examined in cross on 24.6.2009 and when the case has been posted
for further DWs. on 3.7.2009, 10.7.2009, 20.7.2009 and 27.7.2009, the petitioner/defendant has come forward with the present petition. It is
true that the respondent/plaintiff has mentioned that the suit property and the property purchased by the defendant''s father are completely different.
In para 11 of the plaint, the plaintiff has mentioned about the pattas issued in his favour. The said pattas have not been produced before this Court.
The petitioner/defendant has already produced patta No. 2496 referred in the petition as Ex.B.2. Being the plaintiff, it is the bounden duty of the
respondent/plaintiff to prove his case by producing relevant documentary and oral evidence. The petitioner/defendant has prayed for production of
revenue records in old S. No. 92/2A without specifying the same. Strangely, the petitioner/defendant has prayed for production of S.L.R. copy
with respect to his land also. It is the duty of the petitioner/defendant to produce documents in support of his defence. He can very well apply
before the concerned authorities and obtain the documents referred in the petition. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the view
that the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that the observations of the Principal District Munsif, Alandur, that it is for the
petitioner/defendant to produce the document in support of his defence and that he could very well apply before the concerned authorities to
obtain the document referred to in the petition, are inappropriate and erroneous, as it is for the plaintiffs in the suit to prove the possession in
respect of the property in question and as to whether it is legal or illegal.
Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents had stated that the order passed by the trial Court, dated 12.11.2009, in I.A.
No. 956 of 2009, in O.S. No. 399 of 2001, is correct. It is for the plaintiffs to prove their claims made in the plaint filed in support of the suit, in
O.S. No. 399 of 2001.
The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents had relied on the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh reported in Ram Vishal
alias Vishali Kachhawaha Vs. Dwarka Prasad Jaiswal, . Paragraph 12 of the said decision reads as follows:
Now the second contention may be seen by which petitioner has prayed to the trial Court to send for the record of Municipal Corporation in
respect of assessment register. The petitioner has not submitted particulars when the application was filed and whether it was allowed or rejected.
No order of the authority was produced before the Court in this regard. The record of Municipal Corporation is a public record and usually it will
be presumed that there should be no difficulty in getting the certified copy of public record. Apart from this after enactment of the Right to
Information Act, 2005, the position has become more liberal. If the petitioner applies for the certified copy of public record and it has been denied
there must be some reason and this reason ought to have been placed on record by filing appropriate record in this regard and needless to say that
supported by an affidavit of petitioner. But the petitioner has not produced any record nor submitted any details in respect of his filing of
application for supply of certified copy of aforesaid public record or about the reasons of aforesaid rejection of prayer. Apart from this no affidavit
in support of application was filed by the petitioner.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court is of the considered
view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court, dated 12.11.2009, made in I.A. No.
956 of 2009, in O.S. No. 399 of 2001.
It is for the plaintiffs, who are the respondents in the present Civil Revision Petition, to prove their claims made in the plaint, by way of the
documentary and oral evidence. When the claim of the plaintiffs/respondents is that the suit property bears No. 92/2A1A1A1A1A1B, it is for
them to prove their claim. If the plaintiffs fail to prove that the land in question bears the said survey number, it would only be to the advantage of
the defendant in the suit, the petitioner herein. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved party, in view of the order
passed by the trial Court, on 12.11.2009. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. However, the Principal District Munsif,
Alandur, is directed to hear and dispose of the suit, in O.S. No. 399 of 2001, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. No. 1 of 2010 is closed.