← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/13/2018dismissed

A. Desikan v. P. Anantharaman

2018-01-05Honourable Mr Justice D. Krishnakumar5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05.01.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR CRP (PD) No.13 of 2018 and CMP. Nos.47 of 2018 A.Desikan ... Petitioner Vs P.Anantharaman .. Respondent PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 29.11.2017 passed in M.P. No.428 of 2017 in R.C.O.P. No.548 of 2014 by the XIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner :Mr.R.Sankarappan For Respondent :Mr.M.Vijayakumar

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the dismissal order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the learned XIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai made in M.P. No.428 of 2017 in R.C.O.P. No.548 of 2014.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit the respondent herein has filed RCOP. No.548 of 2014 before the Court below for eviction. In the aforesaid proceedings, the respondent herein/petitioner's side evidence concluded and posted for the revision petitioner/respondent's side evidence. At this stage, the revision petitioner has filed the present application in M.P. No.428 of 2017 to summon the Superintendent, Copyist Departments, City Civil Court, Chennai and mark the certified copy of the order in C.M.A. No.108 of 2012 as an Exhibit. The said application was erroneously dismissed by the trial Court. Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioner before this Court.

3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner has obtained the certified copy of the order in CMA No.108 of 2012. Therefore, the revision petitioner has filed the present Application filed seeking with a prayer to issue the summons to the Superintendent, Copyist Department and to mark the said certified copy before the Court below. Without appreciating the revision petitioner's contention, the Court below has erroneously dismissed the said

Application.

4. Mr.M.Vijayakumar, the learned counsel for the respondent appeared and undertak to file vakalat for the respondent and submitted that the revision petitioner has filed the present petition only to dragon the proceedings of the main RCOP. Being a party, in the proceedings the revision petitioner himself can mark the certified copy of the order in CMA No.108 of 2012 dated 30.04.2014. Therefore, the Court below has rightly rejected the said application.

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on records. 6.It is seen from the impugned order, the Court below has clearly observed that the petitioner can mark the certified copy of CMA No.108 of 2012 dated 30.04.2014 himself at the time of his evidence. The Court below has rightly dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, prayer sought for by the revision petitioner in the instant Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

7.In fine, The Civil Revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No Costs. 05.01.2018 Index: Yes/ No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order RKP Note: Issue order copy on 23.01.2018 To The XIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai

D. KRISHNAKUMAR J., RKP CRP (PD) No.13 of 2018 and CMP. No.47 of 2018 05.01.2018