AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Rajasuria, J.—Animadverting upon the order dated 10.09.2007 passed by the VII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A. No.
14045 of 2007 in O.S. No. 4477 of 2005, this civil revision petition is focussed.
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Despite printing the name, neither the counsel nor the respondent appeared.
A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would
run thus:
The respondent/plaintiff BSNL filed the suit O.S. No. 4477 of 2005 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,90,760/- on the ground that the revision
petitioner/defendant did not pay the dues under the telephone bill dated 11.01.1994. Whereas the defendant filed the written statement disputing
the liability and in paragraph 16, the defendant clearly and categorically set out his case and contended that the details relating to the bills were not
furnished. During the pendency of the case, I.A. No. 14045 of 2007 was filed by the defendant under Order 11 Rule 14 of C.P.C. calling upon
the plaintiff to produce the details relating to the earlier bills, but the trial Court dismissed it. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of
the lower Court, this revision petition is filed on various grounds.
The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would develop his argument placing reliance on the grounds of revision to the effect that the
learned Counsel for the plaintiff while cross examining the defendant had put a specific question to the defendant that Ex.A4 is the second bill and
in such a case, the earlier bill and its details should be produced by the plaintiff; and even the details relating to Ex.A4 also were not furnished.
A bare perusal of the order of the lower Court would indicate and display that the lower Court has not passed the order using appropriate
expressions and it is fraught with recondite and esoteric versions; the lower Court is expected to set the order with clarity, to say the least, the
order is ex facie and prima facie untenable. The defendant is entitled to get details concerning Ex.A4 and also the facts relating to the stand taken
by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff during trial while cross examining the defendant. The respondent/plaintiff has not filed counter and even
before this Court, BSNL has not chosen to make any representation. Hence in these circumstances, the order of the lower Court is set aside and
consequently I.A. No. 14045 of 2007 is allowed. BSNL shall furnish the details as prayed for by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.
Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.