Skip to content


Sivaprakasam Vs. Rajendran - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCRP (PD) (MD) No. 1983 of 2016 & CMP (MD) No. 9324 of 2016
Judge
AppellantSivaprakasam
RespondentRajendran
Excerpt:
.....petitioner to approach the trial court by filing appropriate application before the court, if it is permissible in law, for the purpose of marking the said document. 3. with the above observation, the civil revision petition is dismissed. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. no costs.
Judgment:

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.66 of 2015 in O.S.No.185 of 2006, dated 4.12.2005, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif cum-Judicial Magistrate No.I, at Kumbakonam.)

1. This revision is filed against the order passed in I.A.No.66 of 2015 in O.S.No.185 of 2006, dated 4.12.2005, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate No.I, at Kumbakonam, filed under Order 13 Rule 10 and Section 151 of C.P.C., to send for the original sale deed duly signed by the respondent on 12.10.1995 filed in appeal No.2 of 1996 before the District Registrar, Thanjavur, now at Kumbakonam.

2. The said document was sent for to the Civil Court by a court summons and the said sale deed is necessary for trial. Therefore the Petitioner/Plaintiff prayed to send for the documents. The respondent herein objected for the same on the ground that the said document was not signed by the defendant and the Petitioner has also not clearly stated about the whereabouts of the document, whether it is in Civil Court or District Registrar. Therefore the Respondent herein prayed to dismiss the said application. Recording the said submission, the trial Court dismissed the application for the reason that the Petitioner has filed the present application after a lapse of more than 9 years from the date of passing of the judgement in the suit. The revision petitioner has not stated any reason for filing the application belatedly, that too, after a delay of more than 9 years after the suit has been decreed. If at all, the Petitioner is to be very cautious and diligent enough to take steps to file the sale deed. Therefore due to the delay on the part of the Petitioner, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present C.R.P filed by the Petitioner. But however, this Court is not standing in the way of the Petitioner to approach the trial Court by filing appropriate application before the Court, if it is permissible in law, for the purpose of marking the said document.

3. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //