V PALANI Vs. P BALASUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision Petitioner/plaintiff/appellant has preferred this Civil revision petition against the order dated 20. 07. 2009 made in I. A. No. 56 of 2008 in A. S. No. 105 of 2006 by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu in dismissing the application filed by the Revision Petitioner/appellant under rule 74 (2) of the Civil Rules of Practice read with Section 151 C. P. C praying for issuance of subpoena to the learned Additional Subordinate Judge's Court's office at Chengalpattu to produce all connected papers and records pertaining to e. P. No. 95 of 2001 in O. S. No. 5677 of 1996 on the file of VI Assistant City Civil court, Madras.

(2.) THE first appellate Court, namely, learned Additional Subordinate Judge, chengalpet while passing orders in I. A. No. 56 of 2009 has opined that the present interlocutory application has been filed with a view to extend the pending appeal proceedings and further that before the trial Court Ex. B. 8 has already been marked and further that witnesses have been examined, and when objection has not been raised in regard to Ex. B. 8 before the trial Court and added further there is possibility of obtaining certified copies and when the appeal has been posted for hearing of arguments and at that time, the present application has been filed without proper reason and resultantly, dismissed the application.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/appellant/plaintiff urges before this Court that the order passed by the learned first appellate Authority in I. A. No. 56 of 2009 dated 20. 07. 2009 dismissing the same is one without jurisdiction and the learned first appellate Authority has not taken into account of the fact that the Revision petitioner/appellant is contending that the decree in O. S. No. 5677 of 1996 on the file of VI Assistant City Civil Court is one without jurisdiction and cannot be enforced in the eye of law and further more, the Revision petitioner is not a party to the previous proceedings and in fact, the decree in O. S. No. 5677 of 1996 has been obtained by fraud and these aspects of the matter have not been looked into and analysed in proper perspective by the learned first appellate Authority, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore, prays for allowing the Civil Revision petition to prevent aberration of justice.