Anim-adverting upon the memo order dated 12.3.2008 passed in U.A.No.175 of 2008 in O.S.No.117 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Perambalur, this civil revision petition is filed.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this civil revision petition, as stood exposited from the records, could succinctly and precisely, pithily and briefly be portrayed thus:
The revision petitioner is the second plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.117 of 2004, which was filed for declaration and possession as against the respondents/defendants on the ground that they were the tenants under the plaintiff. However, the defendants denied the landlord and tenant relationship. Whereupon the plaintiffs wanted to prove their case by obtaining a document from the Electricity Board, which happens to be the employer of the first defendant. In that connection, as per the said I.A.No.175 of 2008, the petitioner/second plaintiff sought for a certificate from the Court under Section 76 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court dismissed it. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this civil revision petition is focussed by the second plaintiff on various grounds.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/second plaintiff would develop his argument to the effect that the first respondent/first defendant explained his stand in the tax returns to his employer relating to payment of Rs.500/- per month as rent to the plaintiffs and sought for necessary tax deduction in the tax returns. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner/second plaintiff if after obtaining certificate under Rule 76 of the Civil Rules of Practice, if particulars of the stand of D1 before his employer is obtained and produced before the Court then certainly the plaintiffs would be able to prove the landlord and tenant relationship which existed between the plaintiffs and the defendants.
4. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would submit that what transpired between the first respondent/D1 and his employer is having nothing to do with this case. In support of his contention he would cite the decision reported in AIR 1987 BOMBAY 344 INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK V. SHREEKRISHNA WOOLLEN MILLS PVT. LTD AND OTHERS, certain excerpts from it would run thus:
Civil P.C.(5 of 1908), O.11, R.14 Production of documents Discretionary power of Court Suit by plaintiff Bank for recovery of certain amount advanced to the defendants Defendants seeking production and inspection of certain documents, exchange by plaintiff Bank with Reserve Bank of India for purpose of transfer of concessions granted by it to defendants No written statement filed by defendants Production and Inspection cannot be granted.
Order 11 R.14 does not prescribe any particular stage at which such production of documents can be ordered by the Court. It can be done at any time during the pendency of the suit. The production of documents under O.11, R.14, however, is at the discretion of the court. Under the normal scheme of production of documents at the instance of parties, documents are produced and inspection is given after the pleadings are concluded. Under O.11, R.14, however, the court may in its discretion at any stage direct the documents relating to any matter in question in such suit to be produced. It is not mandatory for the Court to direct production of such documents whenever asked for.
5. The cited decision, in my opinion, is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the reason that in that precedent the factual matrix involved was to the effect that without even filing the written statement detailing and delineating the stand of the defendants they had chosen to cull out evidence so as to shape their written statement accordingly, and on that ground alone the Bombay High Court dismissed the plea of the defendants under Order 11 Rule 14 of C.P.C.
6. Certain excerpts from one other decisions cited by the respondents reported in AIR 2004(AP) 539 SUNDER V. MOHD ISMAIL AND ANOTHER would run thus:
"Civil P.C.(5 of 1908), O.16, R.6 Application for summons to produce document Not required to be ordered automatically without considering bona fide of application.
When an application for summons to produce document is filed, the Court is entitled to take all relevant facts and circumstances and if it is satisfied that the application has been filed only to protract the proceedings and the ordering of which may result serious injustice, is entitled to dismiss the application. A plain reading of O.16 R.6 does not suggest that the application is required to be ordered automatically without considering the bona fide of the application. The contention that expression used in O.16 R.6 'any person summoned merely to oproduce a document shall be deemed to have complied with the summons if he causes such document to be produced' to mean that compliance is an automatic one, is not sustainable for the reason that Rule 6 declares that the person who is summoned to produce a document without being summoned to give any evidence is entitled to produce a document without being personally present and such production shall be deemed to have complied with the summons issued by the Court requiring production of document and nothing beyond that."
7. The aforesaid decision is on the point that mechanically Order 16 Rule 6 of C.P.C. should not be invoked. However, in this case as correctly and appropriately pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that in order to prove the landlord and tenant relationship, the first defendant's own admission before his employer is sought to be produced as evidence before the Court and in that connection alone such an application was filed to obtain certificate under Rule 76 of the Civil Rules of Practice. In no way the defendants would be prejudiced if such an application is allowed. However, if the plaintiffs are denied such certificate being issued by Court, certainly they would be prejudiced and that too in the wake of the defendants having denied the landlord and tenant relationship. Hence, I could see no force in the contention of the respondents/defendants.
8. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. The order dated 12.3.2008 passed in I.A.No.175 of 2008 in O.S.No.117 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Perambalur is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Msk