Dismissed

E.Mohan Rao v. Ethirajulu Nadiu

Madras HC11 Nov 2019CRP/3625/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a Civil Revision Petition under Article 226 challenging a lower court's refusal to direct defendants to produce bank account details. The High Court upheld the High Court held that proper notice for document production must be issued to enable defendants to stand or produce documents before adverse inference can be drawn. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition is dismissed with no costs. Registry directed to return the original petition to the petitioner.

E.Mohan Rao Vs Ethirajulu Nadiu — Partition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD) No.3625 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.11.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR

¶6

C.R.P.No.3625 of 2019

¶7

E.Mohan Rao

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

-Vs-
1.Ethirajulu Naidu
2.E.Gunasekaran ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.SR.No.4659 of 2019 in O.S.No.13 of 2017 dated 16.10.2019 passed by the Sub Court, Arakkonam.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.T.V.Suresh Kumar

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This revision petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.SR.No.4659 of 2019 in O.S.No.13 of 2017 dated 16.10.2019 passed by the Sub Court, Arakkonam.

¶14

Before the trial Court, the plaintiff laid a suit for partition of number of properties shown in the plaint and one movable property viz., money deposited in the bank accounts in the name of the defendants.

¶15

In this context, it seems that the revision petitioner / plaintiff has filed the

¶16

present unnumbered application seeking a direction to the defendants /

¶17

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

C.R.P.(PD) No.3625 of 2019

¶20

respondents to produce all their bank account details for the last ten years along with the details about the deposits made in the said accounts. In the said application, the learned Judge, after having perused the same, has passed the impugned order dated 16.10.2018 stating that, if at all the plaintiff wants some documents, which are in the custody of the defendants to be produced before the Court below, steps could have been taken to issue notice to that effect under the relevant provisions of C.P.C., and without taking any steps, the plaintiff / revision petitioner cannot seek the indulgence of the Court to issue directions to produce those documents.

¶21

Since the said order dated 16.10.2018 made by the Court below is being challenged, I have perused the said order as well as the application filed to that effect by the revision petitioner and have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner / plaintiff.

¶22

As has been rightly held by the learned Judge of the trial Court, if at all the revision petitioner / plaintiff wants the production of some documents in the custody of the defendants, steps can be taken to that effect and it is for the defendants either to produce those documents or to take a stand that no such document is available or though it is available, it cannot be produced. In both the cases, adverse inference can be drawn and advantage can be taken by the revision petitioner / plaintiff. However, without resorting to that method, the present

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

C.R.P.(PD) No.3625 of 2019

¶26

application has been filed seeking a direction to the defendants to produce the documents, which is not justifiable and that is the reason why the learned Judge took the view and rejected the application.

¶27

6.In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the reason given by the learned Judge cannot be said to be unjustifiable and hence the Civil Revision Petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the original petition has been filed by the revision petitioner. Registry is directed to return the same to the revision petitioner,

¶28

after due acknowledgment.

¶29

11-11-2019 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No KST To

¶30

The Subordinate Judge, Arakkonam.

¶31

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

C.R.P.(PD) No.3625 of 2019

¶34

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶35

KST

¶36

C.R.P.(PD) No.3625 of 2019

¶37

11.11.2019

¶38

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶39

Page 4 of 4

E.Mohan Rao v. Ethirajulu Nadiu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Mohan Rao v. Ethirajulu Nadiu

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

S.Siluvai Michael Vs S.Tamilselvi

Kanniyammal Vs a.Krishnan

Margandeyan Vs the Prenambut Muslim

R.Kavitha Vs M.Santha

Subbulakshmi Vs Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd.

B.N.Krishnamoorthy Vs D.Ravichandran