IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 20.8.2009 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKAR Civil Revision Petition (PD)No.2423 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 Salla Gundla Venkatamma ... Petitioner/Petitioner/ 1st Defendant vs. 1.Gaddam Venkatiah, 2.Adiamma. ... Respondents/Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 28.1.2009 passed in I.A.No.11956 of 2008 in O.S.No.4503 of 2003 on the file of the III Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkateswarulu ----- O R D E R
The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 28.1.2009 passed in I.A.No.11956 of 2008 in O.S.No.4503 of 2003 on the file of the III Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The revision petitioner is the first defendant in the suit. The suit is filed for partition. The cause of action for filing the present revision petition is as follows:-
(i) The revision petitioner/first defendant filed I.A.No.11956 of 2008 for a direction against the second defendant, the second respondent herein to produce document No.2169 of 1997 dated 26.8.1997 which was received from Vellalar Co-operative Bank and for comparison with the settlement deed executed by late Gaddam Nagaiah vide document No.3360 of 1999 dated 24.11.1999, which is the subject matter of the suit. According to the revision petitioner, this document also is necessary for comparing the signature and the thumb impression in the mortgage loan document and the alleged disputed settlement deed. This petition was contested by the plaintiff, the first respondent herein.
(ii) The Court below dismissed the said I.A.No.11956 of 2008. The reason for dismissing the I.A.No.11956 of 2008 is as follows:-
(a) The plaintiff has at the first instance filed I.A.Nos.11322 and 11323 of 2005 for comparison of the signature and thumb impression of late Gaddam Nagaiah in the alleged settlement deed dated 24.11.1999. with the admitted and proved signature in the pension passbook and mortgage loan document executed by late Gaddam Nagaiah in favour of Vellalar Co-operative bank on 26.8.1997. The pension pass book was submitted for forensic test. However, the bank filed a counter and stated before the court below that the mortgage deed is not traceable. On comparison of the signature with regard to the pension passbook, report has been received by the court below.
(b) The present petitioner filed two applications, namely, I.A.No.7823 of 2007 and I.A.No.18980 of 2006 for the very same relief, namely, to compare the signature and thumb impression of late Gaddam Nagaiah in the settlement deed dated 24.11.1999 with the signature in the pension passbook and the Vellalar Co-operative Bank mortgage loan document dated 26.8.1997. Such applications were dismissed on 6.6.2008.
3. The Court below, therefore, came to conclusion that the present petition I.A.No.11956 of 2008 is filed for the very same relief calling upon the second defendant to produce the document as a tactics adopted by the revision petitioner, the first defendant to delay the adjudication of the suit and it will amount abuse of process of court and dismissed the petition I.A.No.11956 of 2008. Aggrieved thereby, present revision petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he came to know that the second defendant, the second respondent herein had received the mortgage loan document from the bank in response to an application filed with the Vellalar Co-operative Bank under the Right to Information Act. Further, on the basis of the counter-affidavit filed by the bank in I.A.No.7823 of 2007 which was dismissed on 6.6.2008, the return of document was made known. Hence, based on the new information, the petition has been filed once again.
5. On going through the pleading of the petitioner and the facts leading to the filing of the present I.A., it is clear that the court below has rightly rejected the application as is evident from the following factors:-
(i) The order of the court below dated 6.6.2008 dismissing the I.A.No.7823 of 2007 filed by the very same revision petitioner has not been furnished in the typeset of papers, however, at the request of the court, a certified copy of the same is furnished. On going through the order dated 6.6.2008, it is apparent that the bank had filed a counter stating that the loan was closed and the documents were returned to the second defendant, the second respondent herein on 2.6.2001. Petitioner has not stated when the counter was filed and why he has not taken necessary steps to call for the documents from the second defendant, at that point of time.
(ii) Further, while dismissing the petition I.A.No.7823 of 2007 on 6.6.2008, the court below recorded the stand of the revision petitioner in the affidavit filed in I.A.No.7823 of 2007 which reads as follows:-
“In the affidavit filed along with that petition, the petitioner/1st defendant has contended that both the pension passbook and the mortgage deed were forged by the 1st respondent/plaintiff and hence it is not fair to send those documents for comparison. A perusal of all these petitions clearly shows that the petitioner/1st defendant has not only made contradictory statements but also attempts to protract the proceedings. I therefore answer the point against the petitioner.”
The above statement of the revision petitioner recorded by the court below in the earlier proceedings clearly establishes the mind of the petitioner that his intention is to protract the litigation on some pretext or the other. When the revision petitioner states that the documents are forged and need not be sent for comparison, no purpose will be served by directing the second defendant to produce such document.
(iii) In any event, the pension pass-book is a public document and that has already been produced before the forensic laboratory and the revision petitioner states that a report has already been submitted in respect of that document.
6. Therefore, the application to direct the production of bank document will only further delay the adjudication of the suit and the court below was justified in dismissing the petition, particularly, in the light of the affidavit filed by the very same revision petitioner in I.A.No.7823 of 2007, which has been recorded above. There is no illegality or impropriety in the order, which is under challenge.
7. Finding no merit, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
20.8.2009 Index: No Internet:Yes ts To The Registrar, City Civil Court, Chennai. R.SUDHAKAR,J. ts Order in C.R.P.(PD)No.2423 of 2009 20.8.2009