BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR C.R.P(MD).No.1828 of 2026 and C.M.P(MD).No.8863 of 2026 C.Packiyalakshmi ... Petitioner Vs 1.B.Leelavathy 2.B.Pradeepa ... Respondents Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to admit the revision petition on file and set aside the order passed in I.A.No.10 of 2026 in O.S.No.1825 of 2022 dated 23.06.2026 passed by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. For Petitioner : Ms.M.Mahalakshmi ORDER This civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner /plaintiff seeking direction to the Block Development Officer to produce the records of the house tax receipts and other documents relating to building stands in the suit property. 2.The petitioner herein filed a suit for recovery of possession and other reliefs against the respondents. The petitioner claims right over the suit property under settlement deed of his father dated 06.12.2017. It was also 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis claimed that the respondents /defendants trespassed into the suit property and encroached the same. Under this circumstances, the suit was filed seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 3.Pending suit, the petitioner filed instant application seeking a direction to the Block Development Officer to produce the house tax receipts and other documents relating to building stands in the suit property and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the production of tax receipts and other documents relating to taxation of buildings in the suit property would be very much essential to establish the case of the plaintiff and therefore, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the petitioner. 5.It is seen from the impugned order and the typed set of papers that the petitioner has not taken any steps to get certified copies of the documents required by him by making appropriate application before the concerned authority. Therefore, in view of the bar under Rule 75 Sub Rule 3 of the Civil 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rules of Practice, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain application seeking a direction to the concerned authority to produce the document before the Court. 6.Further, if the petitioner thinks the documents relating to taxation of the building stands in the suit property is very much essential, he can always file an application under Rule 76 of the Civil Rules of Practice, seeking a certificate from the Court and thereafter, on production of the said certificate, he can seek certified copy of the document from the concerned authority. In the case on hand, the petitioner also failed to follow the procedure contemplated under Rule 76 of the Civil Rules of Practice. The Trial Court rightly pointing out the failure of the petitioner to make an attempt to get certified copies in the manner known to law, dismissed the petition. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the said order and accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 14.07.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Rmk 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S. SOUNTHAR.J. Rmk To 1. I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. 2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. C.R.P(MD).No.1828 of 2026 14.07.2026 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis