Madras High Court
Dr. S.P. Ramiah vs S. Thirumalaikumar on 6 March, 2007
Author: S.Rajeswaran
Bench: S.Rajeswaran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06/03/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN C.R.P.PD.(MD).No.941 of 2006 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2006 Dr. S.P. Ramiah ... Petitioner Vs. S. Thirumalaikumar ... Respondent Prayer Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 10.04.2006 made in I.A.No.95 of 2005 in O.S.No.160 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tirunelveli. !For Petitioner : Mr. F.X. Eugene ^For Respondent : Mr. S. Meenakshi Sundaram :ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 10.04.2006 made in I.A.No.95 of 2005 in O.S.No.160 of 2004 by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tirunelveli.
2. The plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner before this Court. A suit in O.S.No.160 of 2004 was filed before the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tirunelveli against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,41,250/- with interest on the basis of a pronote dated 01.01.2002. The respondent filed an application in I.A.No.95 of 2005 to send the pronote, Ex.A1, to the Printing Press at Nasik at Maharastra in a sealed cover for verifying the date on which the revenue stamp affixed on the pronote was printed and get a report of the printing expert. That petition was resisted by the petitioner/plaintiff. The trial Court by order dated 10.04.2006 allowed the application. Aggrieved against that the plaintiff has filed this Civil Revision Petition before this Court.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the documents submitted and the Judgement referred to by them in support of their submissions.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the examination of the witnesses was over on both sides, this application was filed to send the pronote to Nasik Press for verifying the date of the revenue stamp, only to drag on the proceedings. As such he contended that there was no bonafide on his part to file this application so belatedly when the same could have been filed earlier. He also referred to the decision reported in 1996(2)Law Weekly 802 State Bank of India, Cuddalore O.T. Vs. C. Anjaneyalu, Proprietor, M/s. G.L.Industries, Kattukuppom, Pondicherry in support of his submission. Therefore, he prayed that the order passed by the Court below has to be necessarily set aside with a direction to complete the trial within the time frame, as the suit is one for recovery.
5. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant submits that the execution of the pronote itself is being questioned by the defendant. Moreover, it was obtained only by coercion and threat. Therefore to substantiate his contention, the revenue stamp on the pronote has to be necessarily examined by the expert to ascertain the month and year of printing the revenue stamps. He adds that the trial Court in due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case allowed the application and as such there is no infirmity in the order to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. I am unable to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant. This is case where the suit was filed in the year 2004 for recovery of money and written statement was filed immediately thereafter. While so an application was filed in the month of December 2005, for above said relief to send the pronote to the Nasik press.
7. I find that in the above decision of our High Court reported in 1996(2) Law Weekly 802 (cited supra), when the arguments were completed on both sides and the Trial Court was about to dispose of the case, an application was filed to send the documents to Nasik Press. While deprecating the practice, the learned Judge held that the attempt made by the respondent/defendant by taking such a novel plea is clearly an afterthought and a clever scheme set out to procrastinate the disposal of the suit on merits. I am in agreement with the findings rendered by the learned Judge in that case. Here also, attempt has been made to send the pronote to Nasik, which has been favourably considered by the trial Court.
8. In the light of the above findings, I am of the considered view that there is no bonafide on the part of the respondent/defendant to have initiated such a move to send the pronote to Nasik. Therefore the tiral Court has committed an error in law and on facts, which calls for interference by this Court under the revisional jurisdiction.
9. In the result the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. Considering the fact that the suit is for recovery of money, filed in the year 2004, I direct the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tirunelveli to take the suit on trial and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
10. In the result, the order passed by the trial Court is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No Costs. Consequently, M.P. is also closed.
To The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tirunelveli