CHINNUSAMY Vs. RATHINAVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioner/defendant/petitioner has projected this civil revision petition aggrieved against the order dated 25.06.2008 in I.A.No.574 of 2008 in O.S.No.299 of 2004 passed by the learned District Munsif, Sankari in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/defendant under Order VIII Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.574 of 2008, has inter alia opined that 'when the revision petitioner/defendant at the time of filing the written statement has stated that the receipt dated 01.02.2005 has been lost and inspite of the efforts to trace the same, the receipt could not be found out and later say that the said document has been found out has not been accepted and resultantly, has dismissed the application without costs.'

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff in support of his contention that a production of document at any subsequent stage of legal proceedings can be permitted if "good cause" is shown relies upon the decision of this Court P.S. Pandian V. Annai Velanganni Films rep. By its Partner Mrs. Savithri Devaraj, Chennai and another (2002 (3) CTC 92) wherein this Court has observed that 'once bona fides of party is proved power should be exercised to meet the ends of justice etc.' He also cites the decision in V.S. Govinda Achari Trust V. Nagarathnammal @ Pattammal (2002 (2) CTC 38) wherein this Court has inter alia held that 'interest of justice requires that plaintiff is entitled to seek reopening of evidence and mark documents relating to competence of Managing Trustee to maintain suit on behalf of trust etc.'