IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-03-2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN C.R.P.No.1430 of 2006 1.K.M.Shah 2.K.V.Joshi 3.Urvasi K.Joshi 4.Kalapana K.Joshi 5.Prasanth C.Shah 6.Dipesh C.Shah 7.Krupesh C.Shah 8.Archana C.Shah ..Petitioners Versus 1.G.Ethirajulu 2.V.S.Natarjan 3.N.M.Kumar 4.Pramod A.Shah 5.N.Dinkarajan ..Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order, dated 21.7.2006, partly allowing the I.A.No.7587 of 2006, in O.S.No.7250 of 2000, pending on the file of the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. For Petitioners : Mr.Sandeep.S.Shah For Respondents : Mr.V.Anantha Natarajan O R D E R This civil revision petition has been filed against the order, dated 21.7.2006, partly allowing the interlocutory application filed in I.A.No.7587 of 2006, by the plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.7250 of 2000, who is the first respondent in the present civil revision petition. 2. By an order, dated 21.7.2006, the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, had directed the defendants 3 to 11, in the suit, in O.S.No.7250 of 2000, who are the petitioners in the present petition, to produce the mortgage deed, dated 18.8.1997, relating to the suit schedule property. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The main objection of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the trial Court had erred in directing the petitioners to produce the mortgage deed, in order to prove the case of the plaintiff. It is for the plaintiff to prove his case to establish his claims in the suit. Therefore, the order, dated 21.7.2006, passed by the trial Court is erroneous and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had further submitted that it would be open to the first respondent to request the trial Court to summon the mortgage deed from the office of the Sub Registrar concerned, if he finds it fit to do so, in the manner known to law. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that he may be given the liberty to file an appropriate application before the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.7250 of 2000, requesting the said Court to direct the office of the Sub Registrar concerned, to produce the mortgage deed in question, before the Court, by an appropriate order. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, it is made clear that it would be open to the first respondent to move an appropriate application before the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for a direction to the Sub Registrar concerned to produce the mortgage deed relating to the suit schedule property, in accordance with law and it is for the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that an application would be filed by the first respondent, before the trial Court, for appropriate modification of the order, dated 21.7.2006, which is in question in the civil revision petition. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. + 1 c.c. to Mr. M. Hidayathulla Khan, Advocate. S.R.No.18015. + 1 c.c. to Mr. Sandeep S. Shah, Advocate. S.R.No.17913. C.R.P.No.1430 of 2006 TRM (CO) GSK 27.04.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/