G. VENKATESAN Vs. BALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arguments advanced on both sides are heard. The plaintiffs in the original suit O.S. No. 484 of 2010 pending on the file of District Munsif Court, Polur, Tiruvannamalai District is the petitioner in the present revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He has filed the suit against the respondent/defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- plus interest based on a promissory note. The suit is being contested by the respondent/defendant on the basis of his plea that under some other pretext, pro-notes were obtained by the revision petitioner/plaintiff from the respondent/defendant, who was a subordinate of the revision petitioner/plaintiff, and other subordinates and that using one such pronote, the petitioner/plaintiff, after his retirement, has chosen to file the above said suit against the respondent herein/defendant. In an attempt to show that the petitioner/plaintiff could not have lent the amount, the respondent herein/defendant wanted to rely on the income tax returns of the revision petitioner/plaintiff relating to the financial year in which the amount was claimed to have been lent.

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondent also clarifies the position that by the time the amount was said to be lent under the suit promissory note, the petitioner herein/plaintiff had demitted office and he was admittedly doing money lending and other business and that in such an event, the amount allegedly lent under the suit promissory note could have been reflected in the income tax return submitted by him for the financial year 2007-2008, corresponding assessment year 2008-2009.

(3.) The learned trial Judge, after hearing, chose to allow the petition by the impugned order dated 13.07.2011. The crux of the order is that the income tax return of the revision petitioner/plaintiff should be sent for from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vellore so as to enable the respondent/defendant to show that the said return does not reflect the amount allegedly lent by the revision petitioner/plaintiff. However, as against an order directing an officer to produce a document in the Court, which according to the respondent/plaintiff, will prove his contention that he did not borrow any amount from the revision petitioner/plaintiff or at least improbablize the case of the revision petitioner/plaintiff, the revision petitioner/plaintiff cannot have any valid grievance. In fact, the respondent/plaintiff could have very well served a notice on the revision petitioner/plaintiff to produce the income tax return for the relevant year and in case of failure to produce it, he could have urged the Court to draw an adverse inference against the revision petitioner/plaintiff. Hence, this Court does not find any material defect in the conclusion of the trial Court in allowing the petition filed by the petitioner for summoning the Income Tax return of the revision petitioner/plaintiff pertaining to the particular financial year.