PR PALANIAPPAN Vs. T R RATHINESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the first and second defendants, their agents and servants, any person, every person, claiming under them either directly or indirectly from dealing with the suit properties morefully described in the Schedule. Apparently, the suit was laid based on two sale deeds dated 8. 12. 1960 and 20. 2. 1961. While the two sale deeds were filed in support of the plaint under Order VII Rule 14 (1) of C. P. C. , the appellant had only filed photo copies of those two sale deeds. The respondents approached this Court by filing two applications in A. Nos. 4148 and 4149 of 2003. In Application No. 4149 of 2003, the respondent had prayed for a direction to the appellants/plaintiffs to produce original sale deeds dated 8. 12. 1960 and 20. 2. 1961. There were certain allegations made in respect of those documents, which we are not inclined to go into at this stage, as any discussion and finding may affect the rival stands of both the appellants and respondents in the suit. The said application was opposed on the ground that the appellants had filed certificate copies of the sale deeds, which are admissible piece of evidence. Nevertheless, by order dated 21. 6. 2004, the said application was ordered on the following direction:-"2. This is an application taken out to direct the plaintiff/respondent to produce the original sale deed dated 8. 12. 1960 and 20. 2. 1961. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that he has got reasonable apprehension that the defendant will try to snatch away or destroy these documents on the way to court and prays sufficient police protection. Considering the sensitive nature of the case, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai Metropolitan City is directed to give necessary police protection to the learned counsel for the plaintiff Mr. PL. Narayanan from 8. 00 a. m. to 28. 6. 2004 till 6. 00 p. m. on the same day and the police protection should be available throughout to him on that day. "

(2.) ON the ground that the said direction was not complied with and the appellant did not produce the two sale deeds before this Court, the respondents filed another application in A. No. 4281 of 2008. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the said petition that the appellants/plaintiffs had approached the Court with unclean hands and the plaint documents are fabricated and bogus. The earlier direction to produce those documents were also not complied with clearly indicating that the original sale deeds are fabricated and bogus. The said petition was opposed by filing a counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that pursuant to the direction, the sale deeds were produced before the learned Master and the same were inspected by the applicants' then counsel. On considering the rival claims, the learned Judge, by order dated 30. 09. 2008, had directed the production of those original sale deeds in compliance of the earlier order dated 21. 06. 2004 within one week from the date of the said order. It is against the said order, the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. PL. Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. V. T. Gopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.