Dismissed

S.Arumugasamy v. C.M.Raju

Madras HC8 Jan 2019CRP/2769/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the rejection of an application to summon a public officer. The court upheld the trial court's view that public documents need not be produced via summons if certified copies are readily available.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed with no costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

S.Arumugasamy Vs C.M.Raju — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.01.2019

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶6

C.R.P. [PD] No.2769 of 2018
and
C.M.P. No. 16222 of 2018
S.Arumugasamy ... Petitioner
Vs
1.C.M.Raju
2.The Tahsildar,
Tambaram, Chennai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tambaram, Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer :

¶7

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against fair and decreetal order in I.A.No.925 of 2017 in O.S.No.63 of 2008, dated 19.06.2018 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tambaram and to set aside the same.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohan For Respondents : Mr. ARL.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel For M/s Palzhani Murugesan

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

O R D E R

The order under challenging in the present Civil Revision Petition is

¶14

the rejection of the petitioner's application under Order 16 Rule 6 of C.P.C.,

¶15

seeking to summon the Sub Registrar, Tambaram to produce an Encumbrance Certificate and Gift Deed. On perusal of the order under challenge, it is seen that the Court had rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that the documents sought for by the petitioner are public documents and that are easily obtained from the Competent Authority and that the present application seeking for summoning the Sub Registrar is

¶16

absolutely unnecessary and has been filed to drag on the proceedings.

¶17

Rule 75 Sub Clause (3) of Civil Rules of practice mandates that in

¶18

case an applicant intends to summon a Public Officer, it will satisfy itself

¶19

that the applicant has made an application for certified copies of the said documents and only when such certified copies have not been issued, the

¶20

Court shall issue such summons. In the instant case, there is no reason adduced in the application as to the necessity for summoning the Sub Registrar and for letting in evidence with regard to the public documents and there are no averments the petitioner had filed the application seeking

¶21

for certified copies to produce the public documents, which is pending. That being the case, the petitioner may not be justified in seeking for

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

¶24

summoning the Sub Registrar for proving the Encumbrance Certificate and the Gift Deed. As such, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court.

¶25

3. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶26

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶27

08.01.2019
vsn/msm
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking /Non-speaking order
To
The District Munsif,
Tambaram.

¶28

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.S.RAMESH, J.

msm

C.R.P. [PD] No.2769 of 2018

¶33

08.01.2019

¶34

http://www.judis.nic.in

S.Arumugasamy v. C.M.Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Arumugasamy v. C.M.Raju

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

Arul Francina @ Arul Prasanna Vs Sekar

Bellappa Vs Mr.Lingappa

Elumalai Vs Shanmugam

K.Rajarathinam Vs the Tamilnadu Govt.

S.Raja Mohamed Vs Member Secretary

k.joseph Vs R.Sampath