Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GOVINDAMMAL versus M.AKILABAI

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Govindammal v. M.Akilabai - CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1419 OF 2002 [2002] RD-TN 671 (6 September 2002)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED: 06/09/2002

C O R A M

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1419 OF 2002

and

M.P.No.12010 of 2002

Govindammal .. Petitioner -Vs-

M.Akilabai .. Respondent For Petitioner ... Mr.K.S.Gnanasambandam.

For Respondent ... ---

Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order and decretal order dated 30.4.2002 passed by the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in I.A.11007 of 2002 in O.S.No.1089 0 of 1996. :O R D E R



This revision has been filed as against the order of the Court below in rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Order XIII Rule 10 of C.P.C. to call for the records and suit bundles in O.S.No.2 242 of 1982, City Civil Court, Madras, E.P.No.1198 of 1987 on the file of X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras W.P.No.9856 of 1993 on the file of the High Court, Madras, C.C.No.9882 of 1993, on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore O.S.No.3783 of 1983, City Civil Court, Madras and C.S.No.102 of 2000 C.R.P.No. 3895, 4684, 468 5/1981 on the file of the High Court (Original Side) Madras.

2. A reading of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present application in I.A.No.11007 of 2001 is an ample testimony to show that the whole attempt of the petitioner was only to make a roving enquiry by calling for the records of the above said proceedings. The affidavit dose not disclose in what way the above said proceedings were connected to the issue involved in the present suit as well as the stand of the petitioner. Further, when the above proceedings were of the years 1981, 1982 and 1993 if really any of the records and pleadings had any nexus to the issue involved in the present suit as well as the stand of the petitioner then nothing prevented the petitioner from applying for certified copies of those documents. The present suit was originally filed in the year 1993 on the file of this Court which came to be transferred to the City Civil Court, in the year 1996. Therefore, the petitioner had ample time to gather all the documents in the form of certified copies if really he wanted to rely on those records to support his claim. The petitioner did not take any such effort but came forward with the present application at this distant point of time, which only shows his intention to prolong the litigation before the Court below. In such circumstances, the Court below rightly rejected the petitioner's application as totally devoid of merits.

3. Therefore, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order of the Court below dated 30.4.2002 in dismissing the petitioner's application in I.A.No.11007 of 2001. The Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the C.M.P. No.12010 of 2002 is also dismissed.

RNB

6.9.2002

Index: Yes.

Internet : Yes.

To

The XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai through the Registrar of City Civil Court, Chennai.




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.