P.K.S.T.Radhakrishnan v. Kirubanithi,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.10.2018 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN C.R.P.(MD)(PD)Nos.1916 and 1917 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD)No.8314 of 2018 P.K.S.T.Radhakrishnan ... Civil Revision/Petitioner/Petitioner/ Plaintiff(in both petitions) Vs.
Kirubanithi ... Respondent/Respondent/Defendant (in both petitions) Prayer in CRP(MD)No.1916 of 2018: Civil Revision Petitions - filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to allow the civil revision petition by setting aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.1036 of 2015 in O.S.No.219 of 2012 dated 09.11.2017 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Valliyoor. Prayer in CRP(MD)No.1917 of 2018: Civil Revision Petitions - filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to allow the civil revision petition by setting aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.637 of 2017 in I.A.No.1036 of 2015 in O.S.No.219 of 2012 dated 09.11.2017 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Valliyoor.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Chandrasekar For Respondent : Mr.M.P.Senthil (in both petitions) COMMON ORDER The plaintiff in O.S.No.219 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Valliyoor is the revision petitioner in both the civil revision petitions. The suit is one for damages. According to the plaintiff, he was defamed by the defendant. The trial in the suit is yet to commence. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1036 of 2015 to send for certain documents, which are said to be in the custody of the authority under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is in the habit of sending complaint and petitions. In order to establish the conduct of the defendant, he took out the said application. Since the orders were reserved in the said IA, one more I.A.No.637 of 2017 was filed for reopening the same. Both
Interlocutory Applications were dismissed. Hence, these two civil revision petitions have been filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that the documents that are sought to be sent for are not having any relation to the subject matter of the suit and they are not referred to in the plaint. He would further contend that even without applying for certified copy of the same, I.A.No.1036 of 2015 has been hastily filed and that therefore, it is pre-mature.
4. I am of the view that only if the certified copies are issued, the condition precedent namely, "apply for certified copy" can be invoked. In this case, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the documents in question are only petitions and complaints sent by the respondent herein and that the authority concerned will not be in a position to issue certified copies. Therefore, the said requirements has to be necessarily dispensed with in this case.
5. I am in agreement with the said submission. It is not the case of the respondent that he did not send any complaint or petition to the authorities.
6. Whether the respondent herein had actually sent complaint against the petitioner or not will be known only if the documents, that are sought to be sent for are received from the authorities concerned.
7. In any event, the suit is one claiming damages from the defendant on the ground that he has defamed the revision petitioner.
The revision petitioner has specifically alleged that the respondent has sent numerous complaints against him. Therefore, the orders impugned in these civil revision petitions stand quashed and accordingly, these civil revision petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/ Deputy Registrar(Accounts) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) To:
The Sub Judge, Valliyoor.
+1cc to Mr.V.CHANDRASEKAR, Advocate, SR.No. 88564 +1cc to Mr.M.P.SENTHIL, Advocate, SR.No.88495 C.R.P.(MD)(NPD)No.1916 and 1917 of 2018
03.10.2018 SM KK/SV/SAR-4/09.11.2018/2P-4C