Rajakalaiselvi vs Edward Buldhas

Honourable Mr. Justice G. Rajasuria

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 25.06.2012 passed in I.A.No. 104 of 2012 in O.S.No. 6 of 2009 on

the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli. A resume of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition

would run thus:

(i) The revision petitioner being the defendant filed I.A.No. 104 of 2012 seeking the following relief:

... to send for the L.A.O.P., filing register pertaining to L.A.O.P. No. 87 of 1967 from the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli, which is now

available in the office of Sub Court, Tirunelveli, to the file of this Honourable court and thus render justice.

(ii) A counter affidavit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff. Whereupon the lower Court dismissed the same, observing that the revision

petitioner/defendant should have filed a certified copy of the concerned document pertaining to L.A.O.P., in O.S.No. 6 of 2009.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed on various grounds.

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that already the copy application was filed as revealed by the certified copy of the

copy application and its number is 507 dated 19.01.2012; since for a long time, he could not file such certified copy of the document, the I.A.No.

104 of 2012 was filed for summoning the records.

The point for consideration is as to whether the lower Court was justified in simply rejecting the prayer of the revision petitioner in I.A.No. 104

of 2012?

The Point:

I would like to highlight the deplorable state of affairs prevailing in some of the lower Courts. The copy application in this matter, was filed on

19.01.2012 and till date, it appears, so to say, for almost one year, the copy application was not complied with. In such a case, this Court being

the High Court should necessarily pull up the individuals concerned for this excoriating and sorry state of affairs.

In the meanwhile, the lower Court should have taken into consideration the above facts.

The learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that already the matter had been posted for arguments and on the side of the

plaintiff, the arguments were advanced and the filing of such I.A., was nothing but a device by the revision petitioner/defendant to drag on the

proceedings. He would also submit that in the written statement, there is no reference to L.A.O.P., proceedings.

Whereas the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant would submit by pointing out that the written statement is not expected to

contain all the facts relating to the defence and by way of buttressing and fortifying the stand of the revision petitioner/defendant, she wants to

adduce evidence to the effect that in the previous litigation in L.A.O.P., the Court concerned upheld her claim for compensation with regard to the

part of the large property of which the suit property also formed a part.

I could see considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant. At this stage, this Court is not

inclined to throw the baby along with the bathe water and the delay occasioned because of non-compliance with the copy application referred to

supra.

Hence, I direct the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli, to immediately comply with the copy application, if it is really as stated by the learned

Counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant pending with the Court, for no fault of the revision petitioner/defendant.

The Registry shall call for particulars from the learned Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli, in relation to such copy application by return of post.

On obtention of the certified copy, the same shall be produced before the learned I Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli. Whereupon, subject

to proof, admissibility and reliability, those documents shall be allowed to be marked on the side of the revision petitioner/defendant adhering to the

proper procedures.

The entire suit shall be disposed of within a period of two weeks from the date of such marking of those documents. The point is answered

accordingly. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.