Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. Only based on the pleadings and the evidence available on record, the Court below directed the petitioner/tenant to deposit the rent under section 11(4) of the Act, but that was not complied with by the petitioner/tenant. The entire records have been called for from the Court below, in view of the averments made by Mrs.Padmini Lazarus in her letter. On perusal of the original records called for from the Court below, it is crystal clear that there is no possibility for missing of any document in the revision either before the Court below or in this Court. However, the learned counsel Mrs. Padmini Lazarus has given a statement as follows:

"I have informed the Court about the missing of type set and tampering of may main document, I also filed a petition about it. But it is not considered but instead the matter was posted in the list very frequently. I have given a complaint letter to Hon'ble Chief Judge, also and enquiry also going on."

As contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is an utter false averments made in the letter. Similarly, in the previous paragraph, she has stated that in this circumstance, many papers have been tampered by applying whitener and also main documents are missing in the court bundle. As there was no document marked in the Miscellaneous Petition in M.P.No.459 of 2009 relating to this revision, there could be no possibility of missing of documents. Mrs.Padmini Lazarus has stated in her letter Ex.C3, as follows:

"This case was partly head by Hon'ble Justice M.Rajasuriya previously and as the type set and some important documents those are all very related to the above case and which I have submitted are found missing in the court bundle. Hon'ble Justice M.Rajasuriya gave direction to the registry to give a report about it. It is still missing."

As there was no document marked in M.P.No.459 of 2009 relating to the Revision Petition, she cannot allege in her letter that some important documents were missing, even without specifying the details of such documents. Mrs.Padmini Lazarus, learned counsel for the petitioner cannot say that some important documents which are very relevant to the case have found missing, without specifying any details about the document, when there was no document marked, even as per the impugned order. The three letters addressed by Mrs.Padmini Lazarus show that it is a clear abuse of process of law and Court, in order to protract the Revision and further addressing letters directly to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court with incorrect and false averments is nothing but under-estimating the Authority of the Hon'ble High Court.

16. This Court for the sake of convenience and reference has marked the letters sent by Mrs.Padmini Lazarus to the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 03.04.2010, 14.08.2012 and 03.09.2012 as Ex.C1, Ex.C2 and Ex.C.3. The learned counsel has not disputed the factum that the letters were addressed by her and in fact, she had sought adjournment based on the letters.

17. Mrs. Padmini Lazarus, counsel for the revision petitioner has stated in her letter, dated 03.09.2012, Ex.C3, that some important documents relating to the revision were missing and she gave a complaint before the Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.Rajasuriya, when the matter was pending before His Lordship in the un-numbered paragraph number 3 of the letter and she has further stated that there is tampering of main document, however, the matter is frequently being posted by this Court. On verifying the original order passed by the Court below, it is seen that there is no document marked in M.P.No.459 of 2009. Admittedly, the revision has been preferred against the order passed in M.P.No.459 of 2009. When there was no document marked in the miscellaneous petition and also in the revision, stating about missing of main document is only incorrect and false statement. She has also stated that enquiry is going on, though no such enquiry is going, on the frivolous letter containing false averments directly sent in the mischievous manner to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, of this Court. Therefore, the averments made in the letter, Ex.C1 dated 03.04.2010 that there was discreet enquiry and the letter Ex.C2, dated, 14.08.2012, stating vigilance enquiry and in the other letter, Ex.C3, dated 03.09.2012, directly addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, are utterly false statements. As contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is clear that it is a futile attempt in the nature of black-mailing the Court by making false averments.