High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order rejecting an application for production of documents. The court found no merit, noting the petitioner had already examined witnesses, and confirmed the lower court order.
Revision petition dismissed; order of IV Additional Sub Judge confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRP (MD)No.918 of 2020
Chinnasamy
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 27.11.2020
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE C.R.P(MD) No.918 of 2020 &CMP(MD)No.6006 of 2020
...Petitioner/Petitioner/Defendant
Vs.
Jeyalakshmi
...Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed by the learned IV Additional Sub Judge, Tiruchirappalli in Old I.A.No.1/2019, New I.A.No.1/2020 in O.S.No.432 of 2018, dated 11-02-2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthukrishnan
O R D E R
The defendant in O.S.No.432 of 2018 has come forward with this revision petition challenging an order passed in I.A.No.1/2020, which he filed for production of certain documents under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC.
2.The bare facts are;
3.After considering the materials before it, the learned subordinate Judge dismissed this application.
1/2
CRP (MD)No.918 of 2020
4.In its order the learned Sub Judge has also pointed out the discrepancy in the original stance of the revision petitioner/defendant as taken in the written statement, and during trial, and the change of his stance now.
5.The trial of the case is completed, if not substantially completed. The state of the litigation is such that if the revision petitioner is able to establish that there indeed was a document of nature and description that he contends exists and is available which the respondent/plaintiff has, he can always require the Court to draw adverse inference.
6.This Court does not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed and the order passed by the learned IV Additional Sub Judge, Tiruchirappalli in Old I.A.No.1/2019, New I.A.No.1/2020 in O.S.No.432 of 2018, dated 11-02-2020 is hereby confirmed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Assistant Registrar (CS-I)
// True Copy //
/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
Tsg-2
To
1.The IV Additional Sub Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
2.The V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.(2C)
C.R.P(MD)No.918 of 2020 27.11.2020
(SR)CO AP(29/12/2020) 2 P 4C
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing the revision petition challenging the subordinate judge's order rejecting an application for production of documents.
Whether there is merit in the revision petition given the discrepancy in the petitioner's stance during litigation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Chinnasamy
Jeyalakshmi
N.Seshasayee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
