This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 05.01.2012 passed in I.A.No.202 of 2010 in O.S.No.18 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.18 of 2008 on the file of Sub Court, Ariyalur. The petitioner filed the suit for recovery of money and preliminary mortgage decree. The respondent filed written statement and is contesting the suit. The respondent filed I.A.No.202/2010 for a direction to the petitioner to produce loan register and tapal register of the years 1991, 1994 and 1996.
3. According to the respondent, the vehicle purchased by obtaining loan from the petitioner, met with an accident and respondent informed the petitioner and requested them to make claim before the insurance company. The petitioner did not make any claim. To prove this, tapal registers of the year 1991, 1994 and 1996 and loan registers are necessary, since PW1 admitted that he verified the registers, but refused to tell as to when he verified the registers.
4. The petitioner filed counter and submitted that the documents sought for by the respondent are not available with the petitioner-Bank as the petitioner-Bank would destroy documents over 10 years.
5. The learned Judge, considering the averments in the affidavit, counter affidavit and evidence of PW1 and the materials on record, rejected the contention of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to produce the documents sought for by the respondent.
6. Against the said order, dated 05.01.2012 made in I.A.No.202 of 2010, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials on record. There is no representation for the respondent.
8. The contention of the petitioner is that after 10 years, registers would be periodically destroyed. In view of the same, the documents sought for by the respondent was not available with the petitioner-Bank, as the same had been destroyed. This contention is devoid of merits. From the deposition of PW1 filed in the typed set off papers, it is seen that he admitted that if any information given by the respondent about the accident to the vehicle, they will make an arrangement to file a claim and also deposed that he verified the register, but refused to tell as to when he verified the same. It will be useful to extract the portion of the evidence in order to decide the issue in this Civil Revision Petition:
@//// gth; oy;yh; tpgj;Jf;F cs;shdhy; mjw;F ,d;Nud;!; fpisk; bra;tJ g;ujpthjp v';fSf;F jfty; bjhptpj;jhy; eh';fs; Vw;ghL bra;nthk;/ xU thof;ifahsh; xU mwptpg;g[fs; vjhtJ v';fSf;F bfhLj;jhy; mij bgw;Wf;bfhs;tjw;F gjpntL cs;sJ/ gpujpthjp VnjDk; mwptpg;g[ bfhLj;jhuh vd;gij mwpa gjpntl;il ehd; ghh;j;njd;/ vt;tst[ fhyj;jpw;F Kd;g[ ghh;j;njd; vd;why; ehd; ghh;f;fntz;oa mtrpak; ,y;iy/ gpujpthjp ,e;j tHf;fpy; vd;d fl;rp jhf;fy; bra;Js;shh; vd;gij vdJ tHf;fwp"h; K:ykhf bjhptpj;Jf;bfhz;nld;/ 3 njjpfis Fwpg;gpl;L jhd; v';fSf;F mwptpg;g[fs; bfhLj;jjhf gpujpthjp jdJ fl;rpapy; TwpapUf;fpwhh;/ mjd;gpwF rk;ke;jg;gl;l Mtzj;ij eh';fs; ghh;j;njhk;/ me;j hpf;fhh;L ,g;nght[k; v';fs; ifapy; cs;sJ/ hpf;fhh;;il ghh;j;J v';fSf;F mwptpg;g[ tutpy;iy vd;W ehd; TWfpnwd;/ 11/10/1991. 22/01/1994. 03/02/1996 Mfpa njjpfspy; tz;o tpgj;jpw;F cs;shfp ,Uf;fpwJ vd;Wk; mjw;F ,d;Nud;!; fpisk;; gd;dntz;Lk; vd;Wk; gpujpthjp mwptpg;g[ bfhLj;Js;shh; vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpay;y/ /////@
9. PW1, in his evidence, admitted that registers are available and he verified the same. In view of the specific admission, the stand taken by the petitioner that registers could not be called for, is contrary to the admission of PW1, the witness of the petitioner-Bank. However, when the petitioner filed the suit for recovery of loan amount, loan files cannot be destroyed till the legal proceedings attained finality. For the above reasons, the impugned order of the learned Judge does not suffer any irregularity.
10. The learned Judge, considering all the above facts and considering the materials available on record, dismissed the application by giving cogent and valid reasons. In these circumstances, there is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court in the order of the learned trial Judge, dated 05.01.2012.
11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
26.07.2017 Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order Index :Yes/No pvs To The Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur V.M.VELUMANI, J.
pvs C.R.P.(PD)No.4108 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 of 2012 26.07.2017