The Registrar General vs A.Kanagaraj on 14 June, 2013
76.Admittedly, the 1st Respondent/Petitioner is not a party to the proceedings in W.P.No.11597 of 1988. As a matter of fact, the said W.P.No.11597 of 1988 was filed by M.Nagoor Meeran v. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Commissioner and secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9 and 3 others. Ultimately, this Court dismissed the W.P.No.11597 of 1988 on 16.08.1999. Insofar as W.P.No.12518 of 1994 is concerned, the Petitioner is Madurai District Vyavasaigal Sangam (Reg.No.92/1993) rep. by its President M.Pandian, Periakulam-626 501, v.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9 and 3 others. The W.P.No.12518 of 1994 was dismissed on 04.07.2001. As such, it is latently and patently evident that the Petitioner/1st Respondent in W.P.No.28202 of 2012 (filed by the Registrar General of this Court) is a third party to the proceedings in two Writ Petitions referred to supra. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the 1st Respondent/Petitioner can invoke the aid of Clause 37 of the Letters Patent which confers power on this Court (High Court of Madras) from time to time to make rules and orders for the purpose of regulating all proceedings in Civil Cases which may be brought before this Court etc. Besides this, as per Order XII Rule 1 and 2 of this Court Appellate Side Rules, 1965, any party is to obtain the certified copies as stated thereunder. Further, as per ROC.4282-A-2010/F1, amendment of the Rules of High Court, Madras, Appellate Side, 1965, the 1st Respondent/Petitioner as a third party, can apply for copy of the documents in the manner provided under rules. In fact in SRO-C-18/10, Amendment to Rules 3 and 4 of Order XII of the Rules of High Court of Madras, Appellate Side, 1965, have been brought into force.