A civil revision petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (sic) to set aside an order and decree in an original suit was dismissed. The High Court held that the underlying order was subject to appeal under Section 28 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; order of the Subordinate Judge confirmed; no costs.
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.
C.R.P.(PD)No.1944 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
C.R.P.(PD)No.1944 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.15051 of 2021
(Through Video Conference)
V. Soundararajan ...Petitioner
Versus
V.Venkatesan ...Respondent
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to allow this Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order and decree in I.A.No.143 of 2020 in O.S.No.318 of 2012 dated 04.03.2021 on the file of the Learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Krishnasamy
***** O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.143 of 2020 in O.S.No.318 of 2012 for reception of documents under Order VIII Rule of 34 of the Civil Procedure Code.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ __________
Page 1 of 4
C.R.P.(PD)No.1944 of 2021
/defendant filed this petition for production of the following documents:-
bfhLj;j mwptpg;g[ xg;g[jYld;/
considering the submissions made by both the parties, allowed the petition
so far as document Nos.4 and 5 are concerned and dismissed the petition
insofar as item Nos.1, 2 and 3 are concerned. Therefore, the present Civil
Revision Petition is preferred. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that the petition was dismissed on the ground that already
separate copies of item Nos.1, 2 and 3 have been filed. Aggrieved by the
same, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
Subordinate Judge, Villupuram shows that item Nos.1 and 2 documents are
xerox copies of settlement deeds. Already xerox copies and and certified
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ __________
Page 2 of 4
C.R.P.(PD)No.1944 of 2021
copies of those documents have been produced by the petitioner on 10.08.2018. The petitioner had also produced the original of item No.3 on 10.08.2018. Therefore, the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram dismissed the petition insofar as the item Nos.1 to 3 are concerned.
20.09.2021
Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order sts/jai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ ________Page 3 of 4
________Page 3 of 4
C.R.P.(PD)No.1944 of 2021
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.,
sts/jai
To:
The II Additional Subordinate Judge,
Villupuram.
Order made in
C.R.P.(PD)No.1944 of 2021
Dated:
20.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ ________Page 4 of 4
________Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a civil revision petition seeking production of documents already filed should be allowed.
Whether the order allowing an interlocutory application for document production in an original suit is correct.
V. Soundararajan
V. Venkatesan
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
