Remanded

N. Srinivasan v. a. Madhavachari

Telangana HC11 Jun 2010CRP/5/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner landlord sought production of original rental agreement and licence from a criminal court to resolve rent discrepancies in rent control proceedings. High Court held the lower court failed to determine necessity of originals and remanded the matter for appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed, order of court below set aside, matter remanded to reconsider necessity of original documents and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

N. Srinivasan Vs a. Madhavachari — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 1811-2009, passed in I.A.No.682 of 2009 in R.C.C.No.3 of 2005 by the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

¶5

The petitioner herein is the landlord of the R.C.C. schedule property and the respondent herein is the tenant, who filed R.C.C.No.3 of 2005 under Section 8 of the Rent Control Act to deposit the alleged monthly rent @ Rs.1,000/-. As there was controversy with regard to the rent, during pendency of the R.C.C., the landlord-petitioner herein filed I.A.No.682 of 2009 to send for the original rental agreement along with the licence filed in C.C.No.378 of 2007 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor.

¶6

The reasons stated for calling of the original documents from the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor, are that the rent payable by the respondent is Rs.5,000/- but not Rs.1,000/- and that the respondent and his son have signed the rental agreement. It is stated that the petitioner-landlord also filed a complaint before the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor, alleging that the respondent and his son have submitted forged rental agreement before the Sales Tax Department and obtained licence. The said C.C.No.378 of 2007 is pending on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor, and, therefore, the said documents are required to be called for from the criminal court.

¶7

A counter has been filed by the respondent denying the allegations made in the affidavit and stating that the monthly rent is only Rs.1,000/- but not Rs.5,000/- as contended by the petitioner. The said documents filed before the criminal court are public documents and when there is possibility to secure certified copies of the public documents, summoning of such documents is not permissible. It is further stated that the criminal case in C.C.No.378 of 2007, which is of three years old, is filed to harass the respondent and his son by protracting the criminal proceedings and if the

¶8

said documents are summoned, the proceedings in the criminal case will be delayed and, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition. The court below vide its order, dated 18-11-2009, dismissed the said application by observing as follows:-

¶9

“If really, the petitioner wants to file the said documents the same can be filed by obtaining the certified copies. Presently the certified copies are being issued by Xerox copies on mechanical process. Xerox copies show the contents of the original reflects Xerox copy taken in mechanical process. However as per Rule 128 of CRP the party shall not be permitted to send for the documents, where party shall be required to obtain and to file copies of the same. As discussed above, if the petitioner really wants to file rental agreement and licence, the petitioner can file the same by taking certified copy. Even assuming that if the said documents are sent for to this court, it cannot be kept in this Court till the disposal of the case as which are subject matter in the criminal case has to be sent back to the said court. Therefore, I feel there are no reasons to allow this petition and that the petition is liable to be dismissed.”

¶10

I am of the opinion that the court below has not stated anything as to whether the original documents are necessary to resolve the controversy or not. According to the petitioner, to resolve the controversy as to whether the said documents are genuine or fabricated and whether the rent is Rs.1,000/or Rs.5,000/-, the original documents are required to be considered. If the court below comes to a conclusion that production of the original documents is necessary, then it shall pass an order requiring for such production. But, if the court below comes to a conclusion that the originals are not required, then the party is required to file certified copies of the original documents alone. In the instant case, the court below did not consider the issue as to whether the original documents are required or not. However, to resolve the said controversy, the matter needs to be remanded to the court below.

¶11

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order of the court below and remanding the matter to the court below to reconsider and pass appropriate orders afresh in the said I.A., within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

Prv

¶13

11-06-2010

N. Srinivasan v. a. Madhavachari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Srinivasan v. a. Madhavachari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Green Bio Remedies Vs The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture

Roddam Mohsina Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Smt. G.Jayalakshamma, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K.Vinodhar Vs M.Sudershanam

T. Rajya Lakshmi Vs Joint Sub-Registrar

Pydaparthi Krishnaveni Vs The District Collector, East Godavari District,Kakinada