HUSSAINY BEGUM Vs. R NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above civil revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to set aside the order dated 9.8.2002 made in I.A.No.6794 of 2002 in O.S.No.2964 of 1998 by the learned XIV Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.

(2.) On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in the absence of any representation made on the part of the respondent, in spite of his name having been printed in the list, what comes to be known is that the respondent herein has filed the suit before the Court below for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from in any manner interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property bearing Door No.54, in S.No.14, Bharath Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Kulathoor, Chennai-99 in an extent of 2200 sq.ft.

(3.) During the course of trial, the respondent/plaintiff got examined herself as P.W.1 in chief on 22.3.2001 and a patta is said to have been issued by the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Saidapet in her favour regarding Suit Survey No.14 which has been marked as Ex.A.1 subject to objection by the petitioner/defendant. At this stage, the petitioner/defendant has filed a petition in I.A.No.6794 of 2002 under Rule 75 of the Civil Rules of Practice before the Court below praying to issue sub-poena to the office of the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Perambur-Purasawalkam Taluk, Chennai, to produce the records relating to the patta issued in respect of the suit property at No.65, Kulathur village, comprised in Survey No.14 and to give evidence in respect thereof on averments such as that the said document produced by the plaintiff is a forged and fabricated one and that the respondent/plaintiff has committed the offence punishable under Section 193 of the IPC; that Kolathur village wherein the suit property situates lies within Perambur-Purasawalkam Taluk since 1979 and she has also produced the patta issued in respect of the suit property even on 12.5.1986 by the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar of Perambur-Purasawalkam Taluk; that it is expedient in the interest of justice that necessary proceedings are to be taken against the respondent/plaintiff including to file a complaint before the appropriate Court with respect to such false, forged and fabricated document produced in the judicial proceedings. Otherwise it would lead to serious consequences.