SMITA AMBALAL PATEL Vs. ILA VIPIN PANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Patel, the appellant in person mr. Doctor appears for respondent No. 1. Ms. Dutt appears for respondent No. 2.

(2.) This appeal is filed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge on 23rd September, 2004 on Chamber Summons No. 1038 of 2004, which the appellant had taken out in Testamentary Suit No. 17 of 1996 wherein she is a caveatrix/defendant. The prayer in the chamber summons was two fold. (a) That the office be ordered and directed to furnish to the caveatrix/defendant in the Testamentary Suit No. 17 of 1996 certified copy of the Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2004 in the Testamentary Suit No. 17 of 1996 expeditiously; (b) That the office be ordered and directed to furnish to the caveatrix/defendant transcript of the two audio cassettes, in respect of the Tape-recorded telephonic conversation held on Saturday, february 7, 2004, between Ila V. Pandya (petitioner/plaintiff) and ms. Fereshte Sethna (Advocate) filed in the Miscellaneous application No. 1 of 2004 in the Testamentary Suit No. 17 of 1996 in the Testamentary Petition No. 132 of 1996. Thus, as can be seen from the chamber summons, prayer (a) sought certified copy of Misc. Application No. 1 of 2004. That application was moved by respondent No. 2 to this appeal against respondent No. 1 seeking an action for perjury against her. Resp'ondent No. 2 is the former advocate of respondent no. 1. Apart from moving that application, two audio cassettes were tendered before the court in support of that application for perjury. The present appellant, who is the caveatrix/defendant in that proceeding, applied for a certified copy of that Misc. Application as also the two audio cassettes. The chamber summons came to be rejected by the order passed on 23rd September, 2004. It is being aggrieved by this order that the present appeal is filed. The learned Single Judge has held that the appellant is not concerned with the Misc. Application. He has also noted that similar request was made earlier and was rejected.

(3.) Ms. Patel, the appellant appearing in person, submitted that under section 74 of the EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, one is entitled to seek public documents and section 74 (l) (iii) refers to the documents forming the acts or records of the acts amongst others of public officers which include judicial officers. She also referred to section 76 thereof which provides that every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor. She pointed out that she had applied for inspection and she has been given inspection of the Misc. Application and, therefore, if she is a party to the proceeding, she is entitled to the certified copy thereof. That application having been rejected, this appeal has been filed.