IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.01.2009 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(PD).Nos.952 to 954 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 K.Madhavaramanjuam ... Petitioner in all the CRPs. vs. G.Rajeswari ... Respondent in all the CRPs.
These civil revision petitions are preferred against the order dated 04.02.2008 made in I.A.Nos.200 to 202 of 2007 in O.S.No.484 of 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Ariyalur.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kamadevan in all CRPs For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar in all CRPs. COMMON ORDER
Animadverting upon the order dated 04.02.2008 made in I.A.Nos.200 to 202 of 2007 in O.S.No.484 of 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Ariyalur, these civil revision petitions are focussed.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Niggard and bereft of details, the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these civil revision petitions would run thus:
The respondent/plaintiff herein filed the suit in O.S.No.484 of 2004 seeking the following reliefs as against the defendant/revision petitioner.
– for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant and directing the defendant to put plaintiff in possession of the suit property within such time.
– directing the defendant to pay the damages to the plaintiff for use and occupation of the suit property at the rate of Rs.500/- per month from 01.08.2004 both future and past damages till the actual delivery of possession.
4. The defendant filed written statement; the trial was conducted. It appears when the matter was posted for arguments, the revision petitioner/defendant had chosen to file as many as three I.As., viz., 200 to 201 of 2007 seeking the following reliefs:
i) to send for the document from the office of the Tahsildar of
Ariyalur, viz., the voter list for the year 1991 of Ward No.3
of Elakurichi Village, Ariyalur Taluk.
ii) to send for the document from the Taluk Supply Office of
Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur, viz., the original ration card, the original application and other relevant original records for the year 1991 of Old Door No.3/39, New Door No.431/1 of East Street of Elakurichi Village, Ariyalur Taluk;
iii) to send the disputed signatures of the plaintiff found in Page Nos.1 to 3 in Ex.B10 along with the admitted signatures in the vakalat nama and in the deposition of PW1 to the handwriting expert of the forensic department of Government of Tamil Nadu at Chennai by appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take the relevant documents to the Department and to get back those documents safely and to direct the expert to give report and evidence.
After hearing both the sides, the lower court dismissed all the three I.As. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order, these revisions have been filed on various grounds.
5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant would develop his argument to the effect that the defendant wanted the Government officials to produce the ration card as well as the voters list, just to prove that the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment in his capacity as one of the co-parceners and not as alleged in the plaint; simply because, the re-opening and recall petitions, viz., I.A.Nos.236 and 237, which were earlier filed during the year 2007 were dismissed, there is no embargo for the revision petitioner to seek remedy before the Court by filing the aforesaid three I.As in a title suit of this nature; due opportunity should have been given by the lower court; but it was not given so; Accordingly, he prays for allowing all the three Civil Revision Petitions.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also would submit that as against the earlier dismissal of the re-open and recall petitions, he also filed revisions with delay petitions and those are also pending.
7. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, would draw the attention of this Court to the effect that even during the year 2005, Ex.B10, which is an unstamped and unregistered document was marked subject to objection of the defendant and at that time itself, the plaintiff disputed the signature of the deceased, whereupon, the revision petitioner herein had not chosen to seek for the assistance of an expert for comparing with the disputed signature with the admitted signature.
8. The lower court correctly in its order adverted to the fact that the revision petitioner allowed grass to grow under his feet and that there was quissance on his part and thereby attracted the maxim Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt – The laws aid those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights and hence absolutely there is no merit in these revision petitions.
9. Considering the pro et contra , I am of the opinion that the I.A filed for praying the Court to send Ex.B10 to the expert for comparison, in my opinion would further add to the delay. Already evidence, both oral and documentary, has been adduced before the Court and the Court itself under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act is having the power to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signatures, of course, subject to the restrictions as laid down in catena of decisions.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff is correct in arguing that, if at the belated stage, Ex.B10 is sent to the expert for comparison, certainly, it would take at least six more months, which would be against justice. Hence, in this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion, that the lower court was right in dismissing I.A.No.202 of 2007, which is one for sending the document for expert opinion. However, the remaining I.A.Nos.200 and 201 of 2007, which are one for summoning the voters card and another for summoning the ration card could have been favourably considered by the lower court, even though there are laches on the part of the defendant, awarding cost payable by the revision petitioner to the respondent, the lower court could have allowed those two applications. No doubt, a litigant should be diligent enough in conducting his case before the Court. Since this happens to be a litigation between near relatives and that too, in connection with their right over the immovable property, I am of the considered opinion that the prayer of the petitioner for summoning the public documents could be allowed but by awarding costs.
G.RAJASURIA,J
vj2
11. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.954 of 2008 relating to summoning of Ex.B10 is dismissed whereas C.R.P.Nos.952 and 953 of 2008 relating to summoning of public documents are allowed subject to cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to be paid by the revision petitioner to the respondent within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff seek for early disposal of the matter. In these circumstances, the lower court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report compliance.
vj2 21.01.2009 Index :Yes Internet:Yes To The Additional District Munsif, Ariyalur. C.R.P.(PD).Nos.952 to 954 of 2008