1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.88 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Janaki Ammal (died) 1.Murugan 2.Kottai Ammal 3.Vijayakumar 4.Jeevanandam 5.Poongothai 6.Kalyanakumar 7.Meenal 8.Tamilselvi (Petitioners 2 to 6 and 8 are represented through their power agent viz., sixth petitioner) .. Petitioners Vs. S.Palaniyappan .. Respondent Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 18.09.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.652 of 2010 in Original Suit No.141 of 2007 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Karaikudi. For Petitioners : Mr.K.Guhan ORDER The impugned order dated 18.09.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.652 of 2010 in Original Suit No.141 of 2007 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Karaikudi is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.141 of 2007 on the file of the Court below for the relief of recovery of possession, wherein the present revision petitioners have been shown as defendants. During pendency of the same, the petition in question has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.652 of 2010 under Rule 75 of the Civil Rules of Practice so as to send for the documents mentioned therein. The Court below after considering the rival contentions raised on either side has dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 3. Considering the nature of the relief sought for in Interlocutory Application No.652 of 2010 as well as the nature of the order passed by the Court below, notice need not be sent to the respondent and the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission on the basis of the contention urged on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the side of the revision petitioners. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has advanced his reiterative argument stating that the suit property has been assigned in favour of the deceased Janaki Ammal and in order to establish the right of the revision petitioners, the documents mentioned in the petition are very much essential and in order to send for the same, the present petition has been filed, but the Court below without considering the purpose for which the documents have to be sent for, erroneously dismissed the petition and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 5. In fact this Court has perused the entire averments made in the petition. Nowhere, it has been specifically stated the purpose for which the documents mentioned in the petition are very much essential. Further the present petition has been filed under Rule 75 of the Civil Rules of Practice. Rule 75(3) reads as follows: "No court shall issue such a summons unless it considers the production of the original necessary or is satisfied that the application for a certified copy has been duly made and has not been granted. The court shall in every case record its reasons in writing and shall require the applicant to deposit in court, before the summons is issued, to abide the order of the court, such sum as it may consider necessary, to meet the estimated cost of making a copy of the document when produced". 6. It is not the case of the revision petitioners that before invoking Rule 75 of the Civil Rules of Practice, they made attempt to obtain certified copies of the documents mentioned in the petition. Under the said circumstances, it is needless to say that the revision petitioners have not complied with the mandatory provisions as mentioned supra. Further it has already been taunted earlier that the revision petitioners have failed to mention the purpose for which the documents in question are very much essential. Under the said circumstances, the dismissal order passed by the Court below is perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.652 of 2010 in Original Suit No.141 of 2007 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Karaikudi is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. SD/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Additional District Munsif ,Karaikudi. +1 CC TO MR. K. GUHAN, ADVOCATE S.R NO. 2190 C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.88 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 20.01.2011 smn PAM 25.01.2011/3C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/