BHOOPALAN Vs. CHIDAMBARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIM-adverting upon the memo order dated 12.3.2008 passed in U.A.No.175 of 2008 in O.S.No.117 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Perambalur, this civil revision petition is filed.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of this civil revision petition, as stood exposited from the records, could succinctly and precisely, pithily and briefly be portrayed thus: THE revision petitioner is the second plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.117 of 2004, which was filed for declaration and possession as against the respondents/defendants on the ground that they were the tenants under the plaintiff. However, the defendants denied the landlord and tenant relationship. Whereupon the plaintiffs wanted to prove their case by obtaining a document from the Electricity Board, which happens to be the employer of the first defendant. In that connection, as per the said I.A.No.175 of 2008, the petitioner/second plaintiff sought for a certificate from the Court under Section 76 of the Code of Civil Procedure. THE trial Court dismissed it. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this civil revision petition is focussed by the second plaintiff on various grounds.

(3.) THE cited decision, in my opinion, is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the reason that in that precedent the factual matrix involved was to the effect that without even filing the written statement detailing and delineating the stand of the defendants they had chosen to cull out evidence so as to shape their written statement accordingly, and on that ground alone the Bombay High Court dismissed the plea of the defendants under Order 11 Rule 14 of C.P.C.