AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.—The revision petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.3189 of 1991 and plaintiff in O.S.No.7566 of 1992 on the
file of the VIII Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras. There is one more suit also between the parties in O.S.No.6714 of 1992. It appears that
evidence was recorded in O.S.No.3189 of 1991 and the revision petitioner was also examined as D.W.1. Thereafter, he has filed an application
to issue subpoena to the Junior Telecom Officer, Harbour Exchange, Chennai Telephones, North East to give evidence relating to Telephone
number 5224641, and the said petition came to be dismissed by an order dated 24.1.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the first defendant has
preferred this civil revision petition.
The revision petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, has stated that P.W.1 had marked certain documents, Ex.A.7 to Ex.A.17,
and they are related to the year 1989 and 1990 and the telephone number mentioned therein bears No.5224641 and there was no such telephone
number at all at that time. It is a false one and also manipulated by the plaintiff for the purpose of the case. Only for that reason set out in the
affidavit, the revision petitioner sought permission of the court to take out summons to the Junior Engineer.
It is seen that the revision petitioner has questioned the very existence of the said telephone number itself. What are all raised in the affidavit
could be put to P.W.1 in the cross examination while he was in box. If that be so, the burden lies on P.W.1 to prove and establish the existence of
such a telephone number, which is a positive act and therefore, there is no necessity for summoning the Junior Engineer to prove that such a
telephone number was not in existence, which is a negative aspect. As such the burden of proof lies on a person who asserts of an existence of a
fact which he asserts, must prove that fact exist. Hence, the burden is on P.W.1, who asserts the existence of the Telephone, to prove such a
Telephone was in existence. As such, the petition filed by the revision petitioner is not sustainable. In the said view of the matter, I do not find any
good or valid reasons to interfere with the order passed by the trial court.
In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P is also dismissed.