IN THE HIGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27 .04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.496 OF 2009 T.Chandrakala ... Petitioner VS. 1.Palaniammal 2.Uma Loganathan 3.S.Senthilnathan 4.G.Ramamurthy 5.Sridhara Saravana Sundar .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and final order made in I.A.No.668 of 2007 in O.S.No.453 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District-cum-Sessions Judge (FTC No.1), Coimbatore dated 20.01.2009. For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Vijayan, senior counsel for Mr.Baskar For Respondents : Mr.K.Subramanian, senior counsel for Mr.M.Mohammed Safi O R D E R
The present revision is directed against the order dated 20.01.2009 passed by the learned Additional District-cum-Sessions Judge, F.T.C.No.1, Coimbatore made in I.A.No.668 of 2007 in O.S.No.453 of 2005.
2.The plaintiff in the above referred suit is the petitioner and some of the defendants thereon are the respondents. The petitioner has filed the suit in O.S.No.453 of 2005 for declaration of her title over the suit property and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants thereon, some of them are the respondents herein from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
3.In the said suit, the respondents have taken out an application in I.A.No.668 of 2007 for a direction to the Joint Sub Registrar, Main Office at Railway Station Road, Coimbatore, to produce details regarding the guideline value of the suit property and to give evidence to that effect. The said application was allowed by the Court below and the present revision is directed against the said order.
4.The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that Rule 75 of the Civil Rules of Practice contemplates that an application for production of records in the custody of the Sub Registrar has to be applied for and only in case of refusal by the authority, the respondents are at liberty to approach the Court for examining the official for production of the documents.
5.Further, it is contended by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents that such procedure need not be followed.
6.I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents.
7.Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be useful to extract Rule 75 of Civil rules of Practice.
75.Production of records in the custody of a Public Officer other than a Court:-
1.A summons for the production or records in the custody of a public officer other than a court shall be in Form No.23 and shall be addressed to the Head of Department concerned and in the case of summons to a District Registrar or a Sub-Registrar of Assurances, it shall be addressed to the Registrar or Sub-Registrar in whose office or sub-office, as the case may be the required records are kept. A summons for the production of revenue paper kept in any office in a district shall in all cases be directed to the Collector of the District:
Provided that where the summons is for the production of village accounts, including field measurement books, such summons shall be addressed to the Tahsildar or to the Deputy Tahsildar in independent charge, as the case may be.
(2) Every application for such summons shall be made by a verified petition setting out (i) the document or documents the production of which is required; (ii) the relevancy of the document or documents; and (iii) in cases where the production of a certified copy would answer the purpose whether application was made to the proper officer for a certified copy of copies and the result of such application.
(3) No court shall issue such a summons unless it considers the production of the original necessary or is satisfied that the application for a Certified Copy has been duly made and has not been granted. The Court shall in every case record its reasons in writing and shall require the applicant to deposit in court, before the summons is issued to abide the order of the court, such sum as it may consider necessary, to meet the estimated cost of aking a copy of a document when produced.
(4) On production of the documents in obedience to the summons the court unless it thinks it necessary to retain the original shall direct a copy to be made at the expanse of the applicant, and shall with all convenient speed return the original retaining the copy.
(5) Unless the court requires the production of the original every such summons, to a public officer shall state that he is at liberty to produce instead of the original a copy certified in the manner prescribed by section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
(6)Nothing in the above rules shall prevent a court of its own motion from issuing a summons for the production of public records or other documents in the custody of a public officer if it things it necessary for the ends of justice to do so. The court shall in every case records its reasons in writing.
The said Rule came in consideration before this Court in 2009 INDLAW MAD 126 (S.Kuppusamy Vs. Venkatesan and others). In the said decision, it has been held as follows:
The lower Court in fact understood to the effect that before filing the I.A.No.350 of 2008, the plaintiff ought to have approached the authority and after his failure to obtain such certified copy should have invoked Rule 75 of the Civil Rules of Practice. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is obvious and axiomatic that the document, which the plaintiff seeks for being summoned is only the report and it is not a document like patta, chitta or Adangal relating to which, certified copies could be issued by the authorities and in such a case, the lower Court need not have pondered over those facts#, which dealt with in the order.
7.It is specific contention of the revision petitioner in the affidavit that the Survey Department of its own accord made a survey and prepared a report and in such a case, the plaintiff would not be able to get such a certified copy of that report from the Department. Visualising all these facts, the lower Court could have allowed the application. Hence, the order of the lower Court is set aside and the lower Court is directed to issue summons to the authority concerned to produce the document as prayed for.
8.With the above observation, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitioner is closed.
8.In yet another decision reported in 2007 INDLAW MAD 1338 (R.Ravi Vs. I.Pandiyarajan), this Court has held as follows:
I have considered this contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when a witnesses comes to Court, there is no legal bar for him to come with any document to refresh his memory to give evidence as provided under Section 159 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the witnesses summoned in this case are at liberty to bring any register from the respective Office and to give oral evidence by going through the said register by way of refreshing their memory. But the lower Court cannot summon those documents in view of the bar contained in Rule 75 of the Civil Rules of Practice. In that view of the matter, that apart of this order of the Lower Court directing the witnesses to produce the documents alone requires modification. Instead of directing for production of documents in Court, this Court can very much while summoning the witnesses indicate that they should come with relevant registers to give oral evidence by perusing the same.
Thus, it has been held by this Court that the person, who seeks to summon the official witness for production of the documents need not approach the Court first and only on refusal by the authority, has to approach the Court.
9.In view of the above stated position, I am of the view that the contentions raised in this regard by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is liable to be rejected. However, as held by Justice S.Nagamuthu in the decision reported above, instead of directing the Joint Sub Registrar, Main Office at Railway Station Road, Coimbatore, to produce details regarding guidelines value of the suit property, the said official witness may be summoned as witnesses indicating that he should come with relevant registers to give oral evidence by perusing the same.
10.In fine, the order dated 20.01.2009 passed by the learned Additional District-cum-Sessions Judge, F.T.C.No.1, Coimbatore made in I.A.No.668 of 2007 in O.S.No.453 of 2005 is modified to the effect indicated above and the Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.
27.04.2011
arul
To
1.The Additional District Judge,
Fast Court No.1,
Coimbatore