R. BALACHANDRAN Vs. S. GNANASIGAMANI RAJADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the Docket Order, dtd. 18/2/2019 in unnumbered Notice in I.A.No... in O.S. No. 41 of 2017, dtd. 4/3/1992, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi.

(2.) The Petitioner herein has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition against the Docket order made in Docket Order, dtd. 18/2/2019 in unnumbered Notice in I.A.No... in O.S. No. 41 of 2017, dtd. 4/3/1992.

(3.) The grievance of the Petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition is that the trial Judge has confused himself between the Petition filed under Order 18 of C.P.C., the right to begin the suit and notice to produce the document under Order 12 of Civil Procedure Code. The change of law on subject in Civil Procedure Code., the amendment Act, 1999 and the mandatory rules for the plaintiff and defendant is to be treated equally in a civil litigation and the Civil Procedure Code also provides the same. Order 8 Rule 1A of C.P.C., is introduced in the Amended Act of 1999 to make it mandatory for the defendant to file the documents in Court on which he relies, however, this provision is not considered by the trial Judge. When there is a mention of the unregistered Will, dtd. 4/3/1992 in the statement made by the defendant, the defendant cannot get time to create a non-existent Will. When notice is given to the Court for production of the said document and the same is rejected by the trial Court, as the Petitioner sought for the original document to be produced by the defendant as per the amendment to Rule 18(1) of C.P.C., and the said document has to be produced to reach a settlement in the issue. Hence the grievance of the Petitioner is that the order of the learned Judge has to be set aside and the defendant has to be directed to produce the unregistered Will, dtd. 4/3/1992.