Skip to content


K.S. Venkatesam Naidu and Sons, Madras Vs. State of Madras - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 1897 of 1958
Judge
Reported inAIR1959Mad335; (1959)1MLJ288
ActsEvidence Act, 1872 - Sections 124
AppellantK.S. Venkatesam Naidu and Sons, Madras
RespondentState of Madras
Advocates:N. Arunachalam, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Cases ReferredTirathram v. H. H. Government of J. and K.
Excerpt:
- .....the purpose of the corrections. but i see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the-learned judge.2. the full bench decision of the east punjab. high court in governor-general v. peer mohamed air 1950 ep 228 was relied on. the general observations made in this decision i accept. but they do not help the petitioners in this case. the decision of the learned judge of the jammu and kashmir court in tirathram v. h. h. government of j. and k., air 1954 j. and k. 11 no doubt supports the contention of the petitioners in a way but with respect to the learned judge i am unable to accept the law as laid down by him. a communication made by one secretary to the government to another secretary to the government would certainly be a communication in respect of which privilege can be.....
Judgment:

P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.

1. The learned City Civil Judge was right in refusing to grant the application of the petitioners in respect of the correspondence which passed between the Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer, Such interdepartmental correspondence cannot be compelled to be produced. Of course any correspondence which passed between an officer of the State and the petitioners must be produced when summoned. The learned counsel for the petitioners explained why he wanted this correspondence. According to him this will disclose why the corrections were made in the blue print, according to which they made the furniture.

It is certainly open to them to let in oral testimony of what happened at the time of the corrections and also the reason why the corrections were made. If the petitioners swear to the facts which are contained in the particulars filed by them in I. A. No. 703 of 1958 on 24-8-1958 it would then be incumbent on the Superintending Engineer or the Executive Engineer if the is giving evidence, to explain the purpose of the corrections. But I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the-learned Judge.

2. The Full Bench decision of the East Punjab. High Court in Governor-General v. Peer Mohamed AIR 1950 EP 228 was relied on. The general observations made in this decision I accept. But they do not help the petitioners in this case. The decision of the learned Judge of the Jammu and Kashmir court in Tirathram v. H. H. Government of J. and K., AIR 1954 J. and K. 11 no doubt supports the contention of the petitioners in a way but with respect to the learned Judge I am unable to accept the law as laid down by Him. A communication made by one Secretary to the Government to another Secretary to the Government would certainly be a communication in respect of which privilege can be claimed; and if the decision were to be taken as holding that such a communication is not privileged I am compelled to differ.

3. This civil revision petition is therefore dismissed.

4. Revision dismissed.


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