Disposed

Mrs.J.Gnanapushpam, v. The Registrar

Madras HC11 Dec 2018WP/27751/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Registrar of the City Civil Court to trace and return an Original Sale deed surrendered as surety in a criminal matter lost during custody. The Court recorded a non-traceable certificate from the lower court and disposed of the petition by issuing the required certified copy.

What did the court decide?

The Certified copy of the Original Sale Deed was produced and endorsed by the Registrar; the writ petition stands disposed of.

Mrs.J.Gnanapushpam, Vs The Registrar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :11.12.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶5

W.P.No.27751 of 2018

¶6

J.Gnanapushpam ..Petitioner Vs 1. The Registrar, City Civil Court, Chennai 600 104. 2. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, City Special Unit-I, Chennai 6. ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to trace and return the petitioner Original Sale deed bearing document No.4099/1992, registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Saidapet dated 20.03.1992 submitted in Crl.M.P. No.6539/1997 in Cr.No.3/Ac/97/MCII, on the file of Principal Sessions and Special Judge, Chennai within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr. A.Edwin Prabakar

¶8

For Respondents : Mr. P.Kempraj, for R1

¶9

Mr.E.Balamurugan Special Government Pleader, For R2 O R D E R

¶10

The prayer sought for in this Writ Petition is for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to trace and return the petitioner's Original Sale deed bearing document No.4099/1992, registered in the office of Sub-

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

Registrar, Saidapet dated 20.03.1992 submitted in Crl.M.P. No.6539/1997 in Cr.No.3/Ac/97/MCII, on the file of Principal Sessions and Special Judge, Chennai

¶13

Heard Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.P.Kempraj, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.E.Balamurugan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent.

¶14

The case of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner had a Criminal case registered against him, under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 in Crime No.3/AC/97/MC-II. An enquiry was conducted and pursuant to the same, the Original Sale Deed bearing Document No.4099/1992, registered in the office of SubRegistrar, Saidapet, dated 20.03.1992 was seized by the police and later, the same was marked as document submitted for surety for bail application in Crl.M.P.No.6539 of 1997 in C.C.No.3 of 1999. Later, on 27.09.2006, the husband of the petitioner was discharged and acquitted of all charges. There was no appeal filed by the respondent. Therefore, the second respondent was requested to return the above Original Sale Deed Document No.4099 of 1992.

¶15

The second respondent informed that the said document was sent to the Court on 08.09.1997 and the same was received by Bench Clerk of the then Principal Sessions and Special Judge, Chennai. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was also filed by the petitioner before the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, seeking to return the above said original Sale Deed. The said petition was returned by stating that the bundle was not traceable. Later, the petitioner has sent a representation to the first respondent, Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai on 26.06.2018. The Office of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, has informed that the said Sale Deed was produced before the Court in Crl. M.P.No.6539/1997. Based on the above letter, a representation was sent to trace and return the above document. However, the same could not be traced. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come before this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had taken adjournment several times to search for the said document from the Lower Court. Despite best efforts taken by the respondents, they could not trace the document and they are willing to give a non traceable certificate.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if non

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

traceable certificate is issued from the Lower Court stating that the Original Sale Deed was lost, when it was in the custody of the Court and the same is not traceable.

¶20

Accordingly, today the Certified copy of the document lost was produced by the respondent and an endorsement made by the Registrar is handed over to the counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has aslo acknowledged the receipt of the same.

¶21

The prayer in the Writ Petition is complied with. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶22

jv
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Registrar,
City Civil Court,
Chennai 600 104.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance & Anti-Corruption,
City Special Unit-I,
Chennai 6.
+1cc to Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar, Advocate, S.R.No.85712
+1cc to Mr.M.Kempraj, Advocate, S.R.No.85700
+1cc to The Govt.Pleader, vide, S.R.No.86250

¶23

W.P.No.27751 of 2018 GJ-II(CO) KAK(23/01/2019)

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mrs.J.Gnanapushpam, v. The Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.J.Gnanapushpam, v. The Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Purushothaman, Vs Pondicherry Industrial

M/s.Adhi Parashakthi Fashions, Vs The Govt. of Tamil Nadu

V.Ramasamy Vs The Chief Engineer,(General) and Engineer in Chief W.R.O

S.Visuraja, Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

Dr.kamala Govindarajan Vs The Principal Secretary

S.Jamal Vs Regional Passport Office