The court dismissed a civil revision petition seeking interference with an order rejecting a request for document production. The High Court held that the burden to prove a chit is unauthorized lies with the petitioner to place evidence, not to seek directions.
Civil revision petition dismissed with 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.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4627 of 2011
Order:
This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.09.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, Chittoor District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 603 of 2011 in O.S. No. 37 of 2005, filed by the petitioner, praying to direct the 1st respondent to produce the documents mentioned in the petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision.
The petitioner is the 1st defendant, while the 1st respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit is at the stage of further evidence of the petitioner. At this stage, the petitioner filed the present application contending that she has taken specific plea in the written statement that the chit run by the 1st respondent-plaintiff is unauthorized and he has not maintained proper records, and to establish the same, it is necessary that the 1st respondent-plaintiff should be directed to produce the documents mentioned in the petition. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Whether the chit run by the 1st respondent is authorized or unauthorized is a matter to be decided at the time of trial. The petitioner, having taken a stand that the chit run by respondent No.1 is unauthorized, it is for her to establish the same by placing necessary evidence, and likewise as the 1st respondent is claiming the chit amount, it is for them to establish that the petitioner is due and liable to pay the same, and as the burden of proof squarely lies on the 1st respondent-plaintiff, the petitioner cannot seek direction to the 1st respondent to produce the documents mentioned in the petition, to establish that the chit run by respondent No.1 is unauthorized.
In the above view of the matter, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
There is no merit in the civil revision petition and the same is accordingly
dismissed. No costs.
JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
25th November, 2011. IBL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order dismissing the application for direction to produce chit documents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Who bears the burden of proof to establish that a chit run is unauthorized and chit amounts are due.
Whether it is for the party alleging unauthorized chit to produce evidence or seek direction to the other party for document production.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
1st Defendant
Plaintiff
Justice N.V. Ramana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
