Madras High Court
Selvaraj vs Kolandayee on 17 July, 2013
Author: M. Venugopal
Bench: M. Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.07.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL CIVIL REVISION PETITION (PD) NO.1472 of 2010 and M.P.NO. 1 of 2010 Selvaraj .. Petitioner/Plaintiff Vs Kolandayee .. Respondent/Defendant PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 10.07.2009 made in I.A.No.566 of 2009 in O.S.No.87 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondent : Notice served ORDER
The Petitioner/Plaintiff has focused the instant Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 10.07.2009 in I.A.No.566 of 2009 in O.S.No.87 of 2008 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Tiruchengode.
2. The Learned District Munsif, Tiruchengode while passing the impugned order dated 10.07.2009 in I.A.No.566 of 2009 in O.S.No.87 of 2008 has inter alia observed that 'even though the application filed by the Respondent/Defendant is a belated one, yet the suit enquiry will have to be proceeded in a proper manner keeping in tune with the contentions raised in the Written Statement, from the beginning, this Court accepts the plea of the Respondent/Defendant and resultantly, allowed the application by ordering the signature, finger print and the contents of Ex.A1, age of the ink, etc., to be compared with that of admitted signature and the finger print and to submit his report.
3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff submits that the order of the trial Court passed in I.A.No.566 of 2009 in O.S.No.87 of 2008 dated 10.07.2009 is against law and all probabilities of the case.
4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff urges before this Court that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is no need to obtain an opinion of an Expert especially when the Court is having power to compare the signature by exercising the power under Section 73 of Evidence Act, 1872.
5. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff contends that the Respondent/Defendant has not taken the plea of forgery in the Written Statement and further, the trial has commenced, witnesses have been examined and cross examined. Finally, the Respondent/Defendant has filed I.A.No.566 of 2009 in O.S.No.87 of 2008, seeking expert opinion at the fag end of the proceedings to protract the suit proceedings endlessly.
6. Yet another submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff is that there is no facility available in the forensic laboratory so as to find out the age of the ink and in this regard, the trial Court has not considered the decision in Yash Pal v. Kartar Singh, AIR 2003 P &H at page 344.
7. The stand taken on behalf of the Petitioner/Plaintiff is that the trial Court has failed to take into consideration that D.W.1 in her evidence, has deposed that the finger print in the pronote and signature found therein belonged to her. Added further, it is also contended on behalf of the Petitioner/Plaintiff that when the execution of the document has been denied by the Respondent/Defendant, it is for the Petitioner/Plaintiff to prove the same.
8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff strikes the decision in Thiruvengadam Pillai V. Navaneethammal and another, (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases at page 530 and 540, wherein, in paragraph 19, it is observed and laid down as follows;
19. The trial court had analysed the evidence properly and had dismissed the suit by giving cogent reasons. The first appellate court reversed it by wrongly placing onus on the defendants. Its observation that when the execution of an unregistered document put forth by the plaintiff was denied by the defendants, it was for the defendants to establish that the document was forged or concocted, is not sound proposition. The first appellate Court proceeded on the basis that it is for the party who asserts something to prove that thing; and as the defendants alleged that the agreement was forged, it was for them to prove it. But the first appellate court lost sight of the fact that the party who propounds the document will have to prove it. In this case the plaintiff came to court alleging that the first defendant had executed an agreement of sale in his favour. The first defendant having denied it, the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that the first defendant had executed the agreement and not on the first defendant to prove the negative. The issues also placed the burden on the plaintiff to prove the document to be true. No doubt, the plaintiff attempted to discharge his burden by examining himself as also scribe and one of the attesting witnesses.
9. At this stage, this Court, on perusal of the affidavit in I.A.No. 566 of 2009 in O.S.No. 87 of 2008 (filed by the Respondent/Defendant as Petitioner) shows that the Respondent/Petitioner has inter alia observed that 'the plaintiff (Revision Petitioner) on the instigation of his father used one of the above said signed unfilled pronote form given in the year 1998 and with the assistance of his friends viz., one Satheesh and Ravikumar filled the same dating it as 27.08.2006. Further it is averred that if he is able to prove that in the impugned suit pronote his signature dates back to 1998 and the written contents of the same are of the year 2006 then his defence of the case is true. Therefore, the Respondent/Petitioner (as Petitioner in I.A.No.566 of 2009) has sought for issuance of order by the trial Court in providing an opportunity to him to seek the assistance of the expert opinion for inspecting the suit pronote and to submit his opinion for the points raised in the petition relating to the pronote.
10. In the counter filed by the Revision Petitioner (Respondent/Plaintiff) in I.A.No.566 of 2009 in O.S.No.87 of 2008, it is among other things averred that it is for the Petitioner/Defendant to prove the existence of the alleged Jayalakshmi Finance and the respondent's father being a partner of the alleged Jayalakshmi finance by acceptable evidence like documentary evidence. Further, it is also for the petitioner to prove that she signed and affixed her thumb impression in blank pronote and delivered it to the father of this Respondent while raising loan with the alleged Jayalakshmi finance company.
11. Apart from the above, it is also averred in the counter that no such difference could be seen in Ex.A1. The Petitioner had received Rs.40,000/- from the Respondent on 27.08.2006, for which, she had executed the suit pronote on the same date and she signed and affixed her thumb impression on the date itself. The Petitioner at no time had delivered blank or printed blank pronote or notes containing her signature and thumb impression either to this Respondent or to his father. Also, it is denied on the part of the Petitioner /Plaintiff (as Respondent in the I.A.No.566 of 2009) to the effect that it is not true to say that the written contents of Ex.A1 are of the year 2006 while the Petitioner's signature in suit pronote dates back to 1998.
12. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff submits that the Respondent/Defendant has entered appearance in the suit through her Counsel on 28.04.2008 and she filed the written statement on 04.07.2008. The suit was periodically adjourned for trial and finally, the case was posted on 13.08.2008. On that day, the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and till 27.11.2008, the matter was adjourned for completing the cross-examination of P.W.1 alone. On 22.04.2009, the suit was ripe for argument and it was adjourned to 28.04.2009 'For Judgment'. As a matter of fact, an evidence of an expert is to be considered along with the other oral and documentary evidence available on record.
13. It is to be noted that Section 20 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 would not get attracted automatically or as a matter of routine. These are all matters of evidence to be gone into by the trial Court where the litigants let in evidence in this regard, before coming to the conclusion as to the applicability or otherwise of Section 20 read with 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. In short, the onus of proof ought to be applied correctly.
14. The term ' may presume' under Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 specifies that whenever it is provided by the said Act, a Court of Law may presume a fact. Further, in terms of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, there is a presumption in Law that the instrument / document is supported by consideration.
15. If the execution of pronote is admitted under Section 118 (a) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, then, the presumption arises. Of course, the said presumption is a rebuttal one either by circumstantial evidence or presumption of fact drawn under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. Really speaking, Sections 138, 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act are quite in confirmity with the definition contained in Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act which speaks of ' Presumption of fact'.
16. An expert cannot usually be asked to express an opinion, upon any of the issues whether of Law or fact which the Court or Jury is to decide / determine. Undoubtedly, the function / duty of an expert is to supply the judge or jury with appropriate scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of their findings so as to enable the Court to confirm its own view by applying its independent judgment based on the facts and circumstances of a given case.
17. At this juncture, this Court relevantly points out that the opinion of an Expert as to the identity of Handwriting, or finger impressions is admissible in evidence as relevant facts. It is the duty of the judge and jury to form their own opinion or conclusion on the facts stated. An Expert witness may tender opinion or evidence. However, a Court of Law is free to arrive at its own conclusions.
18. It is true that Law must keep pace with the development of science and utilise the same at the optimum level. A Judge/Presiding Officer of a Court is not supposed to possess expert knowledge in handwriting/finger print matters. Indeed, an opinion tendered by an expert is a relevant one. It is for the trial Court to find out whether there is any reasonable and genuine case made out by a litigant seeking the assistance of an expert for obtaining his opinion in the matter in issue.
19. In Law of Evidence, 'opinion' means any inference from observed facts and the general rule is that witnesses must speak only to those details which were directly observed by them. The drawing of inference is the duty of judge.
20. It is not out of place by this Court to point out that PW1 in his cross-examination (before the trial Court) has deposed that there is a difference of writings in the recitals of Ex.A1 and that of the letters in signature. PW2 has also stated in his evidence (in cross-examination) that ' two have been writing in same pen' and further, ' it is writing in Ink Pen'. PW3 also stated that Ex.A1 is in old paper.
21. The case of the Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff is that the Respondent / Defendant executed the suit pronote dated 27.08.2006 for Rs.40,000/- agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 12% etc.,. In the suit, the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has sought for recovery of a sum of Rs.47,573/- together with subsequent interest at 9% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation.
22. In the Written Statement, the Respondent / Defendant has taken a plea that the suit pronote is not supported by any consideration and it is also a fabricated one with the malafide aim. To put it shortly, the plea taken by the Respondent / Defendant is that she never received any amount from the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff and that there is no enforceable debt or legal liability on the part of the Respondent/Defendant in regard to the suit claim made by the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff.
23. In this regard, this Court worth recall and recollect the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India V. Jyoti Prakash Mitter, AIR 1871 SC 1093 at 1098 to 1100, in paragraph Nos. 10 to 12, wherein, it is observed and laid down as follows;
"10. After consultations between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Law, the Home Ministry sent certain old writings of the year 1904, 1949,1950 and 1959, and requested the Director to determine the age of the writing of the disputed horoscope and marginal note in the almanac by comparison. The Director on 17.04.1965 wrote that it "was impossible to give any definite opinion by such comparison particularly when the comparison writings were not made with the same ink on similar paper and not stored under the same conditions as the documents under examination", and that it " will not be possible for a document expert, however reputed he might be, anywhere in the world, to give any definite opinion on the probable date of the horoscope and the ink writing in the margin of the almanac".
11. After receiving the second report from the Director, the Ministry of Law raised the question about the opportunity to be given to the respondent before the President in the enquiry for determining the age of the respondent under Article 217(3). It was then decided to refer the question to the Chief Justice of India for his advice. On 24.07.1965, the Chief Justice of India advised the President about the procedure to be adopted in the determination of the age of the respondent. Thereafter, pursuant to a suggestion made by the Law Minister the Ministry of Home Affairs wrote to the respondent on 31.7.1965 requiring him to state the date or year of the horoscope. The respondent by his letter dated 4.8.1965, stated that it was not possible for him to give definitely the date or year of the horoscope but he asserted that it was at least in existence in the year 1921 when it was consulted on the occasion of his marriage. On 23.2.1965, the respondent addressed a telegram to the President requesting that an early decision of the question of his age may be reached. On 15.3.1965, he addressed another telegram to the President requesting leave to produce other documentary evidence which he claimed may be available in East Pakistan, but sometime thereafter he informed the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, that owing to lack of co-operation on the part of the people in East Pakistan it was not possible to get the evidence which was mentioned in his letter to the President and that he must content himself with the evidence he had already produced and which in his view was "overwhelming". He further stated:
" You can, therefore, take it that I have no evidence to produce on the subject of my age, unless I am driven to call an expert or experts as indicated by me in my letter to you, dated 3.2.1965".
On 13.8.1965, copies of the report of the Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory were forwarded by the Home Secretary to the respondent with a forwarding letter by which the respondent was informed that if he had any comments to make on the opinion expressed by the Director they may be submitted and that if the respondent desired he may also adduce evidence in rebuttal in the form of expert opinion supported by proper affidavit, and that the comments, evidence and affidavits, if any, may be sent within one month of the letter. On receipt of the letter of the Home Secretary the respondent sent a telegram addressed to the Home Secretary on 1.9.1965, praying that the president may call for all papers and documents, if not already sent for and grant him an audience, " If at all necessary". The respondent also wrote a letter on that day submitting that the evidence tendered by him was "conclusive" and there was no question of adducing any further evidence or any evidence in rebuttal. He also submitted that the entry in the Bihar and Orissa Gazette (declaring him successful at the matriculation examination ) was erroneous and concluded the letter that all relevant documents be placed before the President, and that the president "may be graciously pleased to grant "him" an audience for the purpose of deciding the question of his age".
12. The file of the respondent's case was then submitted to the president. On 16.9.1965 the President referred the matter to the, Chief Justice of India asking him for his advice. On 28.9.1965, the Chief Justice recommended that the age of the respondent be decided on the basis that the respondent was born on 27.12.1901. The Chief Justice set out in detail all the evidence including the reports of Dr.Iyengar, Director of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta bearing on the dispute as to the true date of birth of the respondent. The Chief Justice of India thereafter observed:
". . . . . . the question which the President has to decide is whether the date of Mr.Mitter's birth mentioned on the occassions when he appeared for the Matriculation Examination as well as for the Indian Civil Service Examination, is incorrect; and that would naturally turn upon whether it is shown that the entry in ink on the margin of the almanac showing that Mr.Mitter was born on 27.12.1904, was contemporaneously made and is correct as alleged by him. The horoscope on which Mr.Mitter relies, refers to the date and time of his birth, but that does not help Mr.Mitter very much, because it is obviously based upon information given to Jyotish-Sastri Shri Jogesh Chandra Deba Sarma on the basis of the entry in the almanac. I have carefully considered the reports made by Dr.Iyengar, the comments on them made by Mr.Mitter, the affidavits on which Mr.Mitter relies, and the almanac and the horoscope on which he bases his case. I have also taken into account all the other relevant facts relating to the past history of this dispute, the conduct of Mr.Mitter, the grounds on which he challenged the earlier orders passed in this matter, and I have come to the conclusion that it is not shown satisfactorily that the entry in ink on the margin of the almanac was made contemporaneously and is correct as alleged by Mr.Mitter. I am, therefore, unable to accept his case that the date of his birth which was shown at the time when he appeared for the Matriculation Examination as well as for the I.C.S. Examination" was exaggerated".
I would, therefore, advised the President to hold that Mr.Mitter has failed to show that he was born on 27.12.1904 and not on 27.12.1901; and that the question about his age should be decided on the basis that be was born on 27.12.1901".
The file containing the advice was then returned to the president. It appears however that after the file was received in the President's Secretariat, it was sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs for putting it up before the Home Minister before submitting it to the President. The Home Secretary on 29.9.1965 put up the matter before the Home Minister with the following endorsement:
" A summary of the case will be found at slip 'Z'. The Chief Justice of India has offered his advice in his minute . . . . . after going into the relevant material, H.M. (Home Minister) may recommend to the President, that the age Shri J.P.Mitter may be determined in accordance with the advice of the Chief Justice of India".
Home Minister and the Prime Minister countersigned that endorsement. The file was then placed before the President on the same day i.e. 29.9.1965. The President recorded his decision that he accepted " the advice tendered by the Chief Justice of India and "decided " that the age of Sri Jyoti Parkash Mitter should be determined on the basis that he was born on the twenty-seventh December nineteen hundred and one".
24. More over, this Court aptly points out the decision in Yash Pal v. Kartar Singh, AIR 2003 P & H 344, wherein, in paragraph No.5, it is held as follows:
" A Perusal of the aforementioned provision shows that a discretion has been vested in the Civil Court to get any scientific investigation conducted only if it thinks necessary or expedient in the interest of justice. The basic rationale of the provision is that if the opinion of the scientific investigation is going to help in extracting the truth and determining the controversy raised in the dispute before the Court then such an investigation could be permitted. However, in the present case, such investigation is not likely to help to conclusively prove that the writing dated 11.2.1998 was infact recorded earlier because the age of the ink cannot be determined on the basis of the writing. If the ink is manufactured five years before the date of the execution of the document and used on 11.2.1998 for the first time then instead of resolving any controversy it would create confusion. Therefore, no useful purpose could be served by allowing such an application. It is true that opinion of expert is relevant under Sections 45 and 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but in the present case that has to be read with Order 26. Rule 10 A of the Code. The basis rationale is whether such scientific investigation is going to advance the cause of justice and would be necessary for adjudicating upon the rights of the parties. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the learned Civil Judge. The revision petition does not disclose any irregularity or illegality warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code".
25. Apart from the above, this Court cites the decision in R.Jagadeesan V. N.Ayyasamy and K.Meignanavel (Crl.R.C.49 and 50 of 2009)- (2010) (1) LW (Crl.) 165 at Special Pages 167, 168 and 169, in paragraph Nos. 6 to 10, wherein, it is observed as follows:
" 6. There can be no denial of the fact that the accused needs to be afforded a fair trial to exhaust all his defences available to him. Fair trial is the sine qua non of criminal jurisprudence and the same has been recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. To prove that the handwriting was not made by him or that the signature was not made by him, the accused can very well request the Court to forward the document for expert opinion . But the question is , in respect of the age of the writings on a document whether there is any expert in terms of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, who shall be competent to examine the same scientifically and to offer his opinion. The term expert denotes, persons specially skilled in the particular field. Under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, it is for the Court to first of all take a decision as to whether a particular individual is an expert in the particular field for a particular purpose. In such a way, if it is found that there is an expert who can find out the age of the writings on a document by means of any scientific method, certainly he would fall within the ambit of Section 45 of the Evidence Act to offer such opinion. But the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no such scientific method available for offering any such opinion.
"7. In order to ascertain the correctness of the said statement, this Court had requested the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.N.R.Elango to request either the Director or the Assistant Director, Document Division, Forensic Science Department, Chennai to be present before this Court to explain the position. Accordingly, today, Mr.A.R.Mohan, Assistant Director, Document Division, Forensic Science Department,Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai is kind enough to be present before this Court. According to him, he is the Head of the document division of the department. On a query made by this Court regarding the above position, he would explain to this Court that there is no scientific method available anywhere in this State, more particularly, in the Forensic Science Department, to scientifically assess the age of any writing and to offer opinion. However, he would submit that there is one institution known as Nutron Activation Analysis, BARC, Mumbai where there is facility to find out the approximate range of the time during which the writings would have been made. It is a Central Government organisation. According to him, even such opinion cannot be exact. He would further submit that since it is a Central Government Organisation and confined only to atomic research, the documents relating to prosecutions and other litigations cannot be sent to that institution also for the purpose of opinion. He would further submit that if a document is sent for comparison, with the available scientific knowledge, opinion to the extent as to whether the same could have been made by an individual, by comparing his admitted handwritings or signatures, alone could be made. He would further submit that if there are writings with two different inks in the same document, that can alone be found out. But he would be sure enough to say that the age of the writings cannot be found out at all to offer any opinion.
8. In view of the above clear and unambiguous statement made by no less a person that the Head of the Department of Forensic Science adopted in various Courts in this State to send the disputed documents for opinion to the Forensic Department in respect of the age of the writings and the documents is only futile. If any document is so sent, certainly the department will say that no opinion could be offered. As a matter of fact, the Assistant Director would inform the Court that already many such documents, which were sent to them by various Courts in the State for such opinion, have been returned by them with the report that no such opinion could be offered.
9. In view of all the above, in my considered opinion, sending the documents for opinion in respect of the age of the writing on documents should not be restored to hereafter by the Courts unless, in future, due to scientific advancements, new methods are invented to find out the age of the writings.
10. Now I have to consider the judgments relied on by the learned counsel on either side. In T.Nagappa's case (2008) 5 SCC 633, I have to state that the question whether the age of the writings could be scientifically examined and any opinion in this regard could be offered never came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with the right of the accused to have fair trial so as to send the document for comparison by an expert. It was never argued before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there are no experts available to examine the age. Therefore, the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the respondents is not in any manner helpful to them. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Judgment of this Court in S.Gopal's case wherein Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.Jeyapaul has held that there is no method to find out the age of the document with scientific accuracy. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that this Judgment was prior to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He would therefore submit that subsequently in another Judgment V.P.Sankaran V. R.Uthirakumar 2009 INDLAW MAD 1077, this Court has directed to forward the document for such opinion. In my considered opinion, a careful reading of the said Judgment would also go to show that there was no occasion for the leaned Judge to answer the question as to whether there is any expert available in terms of Section 45 of the Evidence Act to offer any opinion regarding the age of the document. The entire case proceeded under the premise as though there are experts to offer opinion regarding the age of the documents. Now, as I have already stated, the Head of the Department of Forensic Science is before me and from whom I have the benefit of ascertaining that there is no expert in the field and also that all such documents sent already were returned without offering any opinion. Therefore, the said Judgment also would not come to the held of the respondents".
26. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.566 of 2009 in O.S.No.87 of 2008 dated 10.07.2009, it is clear that the trial Court has not borne in mind of the principles laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India V. Jyoti Prakash Mitter, AIR 1871 SC 1093 at 1098 to 1100 and the decision in Yash Pal v. Kartar Singh, AIR 2003 P & H 344, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
27. In short, there is no facility available in the forensic lab to find out the age of the ink. Moreover, in the case on hand before us, D.W.1 has deposed that the finger print and signature contained in the pronote belonged to her. In reality, the age of the ink cannot be determined on the basis of writing. Further, the scientific investigation sought for in the matter in issue is not going to advance the cause of justice.
28. Moreover, the main suit in I.A.No.566 of 2009 filed by the Respondent/Defendant before the trial Court is highly belated. Also, the said Interlocutory application alleges bonafide on the part of the Respondent/Defendant, looking at from any angle at the fag end of the suit proceedings. This Court opines, it is not open to the Respondent/Defendant to file I.A.No.566 of 2009 praying permission of the trial Court to seek the assistance of the expert opinion for inspecting the suit pronote and to find out the difference between the signature and the rest of the writing in the suit pronote in terms of difference in years, age one made in a earlier time (of writing of the signature) and the rest on a later point of time when admittedly there has been a gap of more than 8 years between two documents.
29. Per contra, the view taken by the trial Court in allowing I.A.No. 566 of 2009 in O.S.No.87 of 2008 dated 10.07.2009 is not a valid one in the eye of law, in the considered opinion of this Court. As such, this Court is perforced to interfere with the said order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.566 of 2009 in O.S.No.87 of 2008 dated 10.07.2009 to set aside the same and to promote substantial cause of justice. Consequently, the Civil Revision petition succeeds.
30. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the Learned District Munsif, Tiruchengode, in I.A.No.566 of 2009 in O.S.No.87 of 2008 is set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned in this revision. Further, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the main suit O.S.No.87 of 2008 on its file within a period of three months (if not already disposed of till now) from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to report compliance to this Court without fail. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1. The District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.
2. The Sub-Assistant Registrar, Judicial Section, High Court Madras.
(to watch and report.) sms