1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.133 and 134 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Joseph Selvam .. Petitioner in both CRPs. Vs. 1.Sekar 2.Muthuvelan alias Sadachimuthu 3.K.Chandrabose, Village Administrative Officer, Door No.2/4/27 A 18, V.O.C. Nagar, Batlagundu Post,Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District. 4.Arjunan,Village Administrative Officer, Mattaparai, Mattaparai Post, Nilakottai Taluk,Dindigul District. 5.T.T.Krishnamoorthi, F Section Superintendent, District Collector's Office,Velu Nachiar Valagam, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul District. 6.The Tahsildar, Nilakottai Taluk Office, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District. 7.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sub Collector Office Road, Dindigul, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul District. 8.The District Collector, District Collector Office Valaham, Dindigul, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul District. .. Respondents in both CRPs. (Respondents 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 remained exparte in the Court Below) Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal orders dated 05.08.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.243 and 244 of 2010 in Original Suit No.199 of 2001 by the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Hariharan in both CRPs. For Respondent No.3 : Mr.K.Balasubramanian in both CRPs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 COMMON ORDER These Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred against the orders passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.243 and 244 of 2010 in Original Suit No.199 of 2001 by the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.199 of 2001 on the file of the Court below praying to pass a money decree on the basis of damages, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. In Original Suit No.199 of 2001, both sides have rendered their evidence and the matter stands for advancing arguments. At that stage, the petitions in question have been filed so as to reopen Original Suit No.199 of 2001 on the side of the revision petitioner/petitioner/ plaintiff and also to recall him for the purpose of marking the documents mentioned therein. The Court below has dismissed both the petitions. Against the dismissal orders passed by the Court below, these Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred at the instance of the petitioner/ plaintiff as revision petitioner. 3. Considering the nature of the relief sought for in Original Suit No.199 of 2001 and also considering the nature of the reliefs sought for in the present petitions as well as the nature of the orders passed by the Court below, notice need not be sent to the remaining respondents and these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the documents sought to be filed are very much essential for the purpose of proving the case of the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff and the Court below without considering the nature of the documents sought to be produced has erroneously dismissed both the petitions and therefore the orders passed by the Court below are liable to be interfered with. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent has contended that Original Suit No.199 of 2001 has reached the stage of arguments and at that stage, these petitions have been filed and the Court below after considering the stage of Original Suit No.199 of 2001 has rightly dismissed both the petitions and therefore the orders passed by the Court below are not liable to be interfered with. 6. For the purpose of analysing the rival submissions made on either side, the Court has to look into the relevant paragraph of the plaint. In paragraph No.8 of the plaint, it has been clearly stated that the revision petitioner/ petitioner/plaintiff has served as Railway Contractor and due to initiation of Original Suit No.315 of 1996 frivolously against the plaintiff, he has not been able to perform his contract work. 7. In fact, this Court has perused the documents sought to be produced on the side of the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff and ultimately found that those documents are very much essential for the purpose of proving the delay occurred in finishing the contract work undertaken by the revision petitioner. Considering the fact that the documents sought to be produced are related to nature of the work undertaken by the revision petitioner/ petitioner/plaintiff, this Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 is of the view to set aside the orders passed by the Court below and also of the view to allow the present petitions on such terms as stated infra. 8. In fine, these Civil Revision Petition are allowed and the orders passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.243 and 244 of 2010 in Original Suit No.199 of 2001 by the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul are set aside and the petitions filed in Interlocutory Application Nos.243 and 244 of 2010 in Original Suit No.199 of 2001 by the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul are allowed. However the revision petitioner/ petitioner/plaintiff is directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the District Legal Services Authority, Dindigul within a period of ten days and also directed to produce receipt in the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul. The Additional Sub Court, Dindigul is directed to proceed further only after receiving receipt. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( P AND A ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR smn To The Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul. COPY TO: THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, DINDIGUL. 1CC TO MR. A. HARIHARAN, ADVOCATE,SR: 3247: DM:2011:FEB:03: COMMON ORDER PASSED IN C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.133 and 134 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 3P:4C: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/