M LAKSHMI Vs. D D 9 UTHANKARAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision Petition has been posted before this Court as a "Specially Ordered Matter" as per the orders of My Lord The Honourable Chief Justice and the matter was moved as a "Lunch Motion" on 27.03.2015. After arguing the matter at length, when this Court was not convinced to admit the civil revision petition, the petitioner, appearing as party in person, who is more than an Advocate, sought time to engage a counsel. Since the petitioner appeared as party in person, this Court took a lenient view and gave time to engage a counsel. However, she has not engaged any counsel and when the matter is called today, the petitioner argued the matter, as usual, as she has been doing for the past 30 years.

(2.) THE revision has been filed as against the order dated 18.09.2014, dismissing the application in I.A.No. 252 of 2014, filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents to produce certain documents. The respondents contended before the Trial Court that they are not in custody of the documents sought and further submitted that only to fill up the lacuna as well as to prolong the matter, after the evidence on the petitioner's side is over in the suit, the said application has been taken out. Accepting the contention of the respondents, the Trial Court dismissed the said I.A. by order dated 18.09.2014.

(3.) MS . N. Lakshmi, party -in -person, would elaborately give the details of the very long history of the case right from the year 1985 and would submit that she did not borrow any money and that the Society is not justified in bringing her property to auction. She would submit that only if the documents are produced, she would be in a position to prove her case. Though she putforth certain facts, which were irrelevant and unnecessary, still, this Court, heard the petitioner, with utmost patience, to give her a feeling of satisfaction that she has been heard at length. She took nearly 45 minutes to argue the matter, though she could not prove anything by arguing for such a long time. The facts of the case, as culled out in the order dated 31.07.2012 passed in W.P. No. 15671 of 2012, are as follows: