The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit has been filed for partition. Pending the suit, an application was filed by the petitioner seeking to call for certain documents from the Income-Tax Department belonging to the respondents. The said application was dismissed on the ground that the suit having filed in the year 1993, the application has been filed only on 24.10.2003 and hence the same cannot be maintained after a period of 10 years. Hence, challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even on an earlier occasion, the application was allowed, but, since the documents were not available with that particular Office, the application was filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in Indo International Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Chennai-1 and another .vs. Continental Carriers Private Limited, represented by its Regional Manager, M.V.Bhat, Chennai reported in 2004(3) CTC 353 in support of her contention that in the given case, the document can be summoned from the Income- Tax Department. This Court finds that there is no dispute about the principle of law as held by the Honourable High Court.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submit that the application has been filed only to prolong the suit. According to the learned counsel, even after the order passed by the court below on 11.11.2003, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed only on 26.06.2007. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that nearly 16 years have elapsed after the filing of the suit.
5. This Court finds considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents. At every stage, the petitioner was very lethargic in pursuing the case. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no bonafides in the Civil Revision Petition and hence the same is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to mark the documents, if the petitioner is able to obtain the same. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs.
vsn To The First Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli.