REGI Vs. A.SAMRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts which are necessary for the disposal of these two Civil Revision Petitions would run thus: The respondent/plaintiff Samraj filed the suit for recovery of money based on the suit promissory note, which is a registered one. The defendants entered appearance and filed the written statement challenging and impugning the averments in the plaint therein. Both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence. Subsequently, an interlocutary application was filed by the defendants for adducing additional evidence by way of summoning the Police Station records, in order to buttress and fortify, establish and prove the averments in the written statement that the suit promissory note was compelled to be executed by the defendants in the Police Station by the then Sub-Inspector of police one Subbiah and one Santhakumari.

(2.) THE Lower Court allowed the application for summoning the records, but due to non-payment of batta by the defendants, the said application was dismissed. Subsequently, the defendants filed two applications in I.A.No.328 of 2011 for summoning the witness, Sub-Inspector of Police, Subbiah and another application in I.A.No.37 of 2011 for summoning the records relating to the complaint given by the plaintiff to the Police. Both applications were dismissed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants would argue the case of the defendants, which could precisely and succinctly be set out thus. The Lower Court failed to give ample opportunity to the defendants to establish their case. It is the case of the defendants that on the complaint lodged by the plaintiff with the Nesamani Nagar Police Station, the Police called the defendants to the Police Station and compelled them to execute the suit pronote and in order to prove it, necessarily, the then said Subbiah, then Sub-Inspector of Police, has to be summoned and examined and the records relating to the complaint also should be made to be produced. If it is not done, the defendants would be prejudiced.