SAKUNTHALA Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 19. 02. 2004 passed by the XVI Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai in i. A. No. 7610 of 2003 in O. S. No. 5282 of 1998, dismissing the Petition filed under order XVI Rule 1 C. P. C. declining to issue subpoena to the Official Witnesses to produce the documents. The Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner.

(2.) O. S. No. 5282 of 1988:- The Suit property originally belonged to one Kamalammal, who was separated from her Husband. The Plaintiff and the Second Defendant set up rival claims, claiming that they are entitled to the Suit property through Kamalammal. According to the Plaintiff, she is the sisters Daughter of Kamalammal. The Second Defendant claims that she is the daughter of Krishnaveni, who is the Daughter of Kamalammal. According to the plaintiff, she was brought up by the Deceased Kamalammal and that the Second defendant has no right or interested in the Suit property. The Plaintiff has filed the Suit to declare that the transfer of Patta for the Suit Property effected by the First Defendant Tahsildar, Egmore is null and void and for other reliefs.

(3.) THE Application was strongly resisted by the Second defendant contending that the said Application has been filed only to delay the trial Proceedings. In the Counter Statement, it is alleged that the Revenue divisional Officer, Tirupathy had not been cited as one of the Witnesses before the Trial commenced. THE Affidavit and the Petition filed are not in accordance with Order 16 Rule 1 C. P. C. THE object is only to create confusion in the mind of the Court throwing doubts on the authenticity of the documents produced by the Defendant.