Party entitled to copy of documents filed in proceedings though they are unmarked

 

Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer

 

Madras High Court

K. Nagarajan vs K.S. Ramasamy, S/O Sennimalai ... on 17 July, 2003

Author: S A Kumar

Bench: S A Kumar

ORDER S. Ashok Kumar, J.

1. The plaintiff is the petitioner. The plaintiff has filed the suit O.S. No. 430/2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karur for permanent injunction against the two defendants - husband and wife.

2. The defendants filed I.A. No. 577/2002 with a prayer to send for certain documents from the custody of the District Court. Along with the application, they also filed a copy of the document called `complaint' given by the defendants to the Sub-Court, Karur.

3. The plaintiff filed a copy application on 6.11.2002 requesting a copy of the complaint dated 30.10.2002 mentioned in the I.A. No. 577/2002 filed by the defendants. On the same day, the learned Additional District Munsif returned the copy application with the following remark.

`How to petitioner is entitled to get c/c of the document. Since it has not mark.

Sd/ A.D.M.

6.11.2002' Once again on 12.11.2002, the plaintiff represented the copy application with the following endorsement:

`Under Rule 127 of C.R.P. the certificate copy can be obtained without being marked as on exhibit. Hence certificate copy may be issued.

Sd/ 12.11.02.' The learned Additional District Munsif again returned the copy application with the following remark:

`Retd.

This E.A. Retd. on that reffred as above is not applicable to this C.A.

Sd/ A.D.M.

14.11.02.' The rejection of the copy application filed by the learned Additional District Munsif is the cause for this revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that under Order XI Rule 15 of C.P.C. a party has got the right to inspect any document produced by the opposite party in Court and under Rule 127 of Civil Rules of Practice, the Court is bound to grant copy of the document produced in Court, whether it forms part of the record of the suit or not.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents Ms. Subraja would strenuously contend that under Rule 62 of Civil Rules of Practice only documents referred to in the plaint or written statement and filed along with the above pleadings or thereafter alone can be granted copies if required by the other side and not all the documents filed.

6. Heard the rival contentions of both side and also perused the materials available on record.

7. The complaint dated 30.10.2002 given by the defendants to the Subordinate-Judge, Karur as admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents was to keep the sale agreement produced in previous proceeding in safe custody for the purpose of marking the same in this case also.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that it contains certain defamatory, false and malicious allegations against the plaintiff and probably, the plaintiff may prefer to take legal action for giving such a complaint.

9. We are not concerned about the contents of the complaint or the intention of the complainant. What we are concerned is whether a party is entitled to get the certified copy of a document produced in Court, but not marked and which has not become a part of the record of that case.

10. What is a `proceeding' has been defined in rule 2(10) of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders.

`Proceeding' includes all documents presented to or filed in court by any party, or commissioner or other officer of court, other than documents produced as evidence;' Rule 62 of Civil Rules of Practice permits a party to inspect and obtain a copy of any document received or referred to in a plaint or written statement and filed in court therewith or thereafter.

11. In this case the document was not filed either with the plaint or with the written statement, but along with the I.A. petition in I.A. No. 577/2002. The I.A. itself was filed to send for some other documents in which the defendants have enclosed a copy of the complaint dated 30.10.2002 said to have been given to the Subordinate-Judge, Karur. Therefore, it is clear that the complaint dated 30.10.2002 of the defendants have been produced in Court by the defendants themselves along with the I.A. No. 577/2002.

Under Rule 63 of Civil Rules of Practice,`every party and his pleader desiring to inspect any proceeding filed in court by him or any other party, or a commissioner or officer of court, in the suit, appeal or matter, to which, he, or his client is a party, shall present a memorandum to the chief ministeretial officer specifying the proceeding of which inspection is required and inspection will be allowed without the payment of any fee, during the pendency of such suit, appeal or matter.' In Chapter VII while dealing with Copies and Copyists establishment in Rule 127 of Civil Rules of Practice, it is defined as follows:

`When a person is entitled to obtain a copy of a proceeding or document filed in or in the custody of the court, he may present an application therefor to the superintendent of copyists or where there is no such officer, to the chief ministerial officer in person or by his pleader or the latter's authorised clerk between the hours of 11.30 a.m. and 3.p.m. If the proceeding of document has been sent to another court, the application may at the option of the applicant, be forwarded to the said court for compliance, or be returned to him, for presentation to the said court:

12. So far as this case is concerned, there is no dispute that the petitioner filed an application for grant of certified copy. But, the learned Additional District Munsif, returned the application on the sole ground that it has not been marked. Even after the petitioner resubmitted his application by making endorsement that he is entitled under Rule 127 of Civil Rules of Practice, with the same reason once again the copy application has been returned.

13. In JAGATBHAI PUNJABHAI PALKHIWALA AND OTHERS V. VIKRAMBHAI PUNJABHAI PALKHIWALA AND OTHERS while dealing with such a situation the Gujarat High Court has held as follows:

`5.This reason given by the learned Trial Judge is not correct and is too technical. If the inspection of the documents could be granted by the court, there is no reason why the persons who were permitted to take inspection cannot take zerox copy of the same. The purpose of the inspection is to know and study the documents. The person who takes inspection can also take notes and even make copies of the same. In view of very large number of documents, the petitioners wanted that they may be permitted to take xerox copies of the same. Their say is that instead of taking inspection and looking at the documents by their own-eyes, they would like to have their view from the camera eye. The request for xerox copies at their own cost is reasonable. Once the court has granted inspection, this request is merely to make that inspection more effective. By allowing the plaintiffs to take xerox copies, the court is neither verifying nor certifying them to be true and correct copies. The plaintiffs will be taking copies for their own purpose in order that they can make effective and detailed study and have proper consultation with their lawyers. That would not only serve the cause of the petitioners, but will also enable the Counsel to render proper assistance to the court, since the court is not verifying or certifying the correctness of the copies, there is no need of the documents to have become part of the record. Since the documents happen to be in the custody of the court, the parties cannot take xerox copies of the same without permission of the court. But that does not mean that the court can refuse such permission only on the ground that they have not become part of the record. The reason given is fundamentally erroneous and merely technical.

6. If the xerox copies are not permitted to be taken, the purpose of the inspection will become ineffective and would be frustrated. No harm or prejudice can occur to the other side if the xerox copies are permitted to be taken. However, only care is required to be taken to see that while the xerox copies are being taken, an officer of the Court appointed by the trial court remains present and retains the custody of the documents and the representative of the other side is also allowed to remain present so that no allegation is made in future. The cost and remuneration of the court officer appointed for that purpose will have to be borne by the petitioners and the amount will have to be deposited by them as may be quantified by the trial court. The defendants would also be entitled to have the same facility subject to the similar conditions.'

14. In any suit apart from the documents marked, there is likelihood of presence of other unmarked documents like warrant issued to the Commissioner or notice given to the Commissioner by the parties etc. Assuming that a party disputes receipt of notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner, then notice said to have been given by the Commissioner will become an important document and certainly copy of such notice shall be required by the other party who claims that actually notice has been given to the party who disputes it. Though the notice given by the Commissioner to the party may not be a part of the record as far as the suit is concerned, since it is not marked as an exhibit in the suit, still a notice can become necessary for a particular party for which he may require copy. Therefore, the document produced in Court even though not marked as a document in evidence in a suit, still necessity may arise for requirement of a certified copy of such a document. That is why under Order 62 and Order XI Rule 15 of Civil Rules of Practice, it is clearly mentioned that any document produced in Court can be inspected. The terms mentioned in Rule 62 and Order XI Rule 15 of Civil Rules of Practice are wider in nature, in the sense that the documents referred are not only marked but also produced in Court.

15. In the above circumstances, I hold that the order of the learned Additional District Munsif, Karur in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to grant certified copy of the document produced by the defendants in Court along with the petition in I.A. No. 577/2002 is not correct and the said order is set aside and the learned Additional District Munsif, Karur is directed to give a copy as prayed for.

16. The C.R.P. is allowed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 18081/2002 is closed.

Madras High Court K.R. Sengottuvelu vs Karuppa Naicker on 6 September, 2005

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06/09/2005 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN 

C.R.P. (PD) No. 883 of 2004 and C.R.P.(PD) No. 959 of 2004 and     C.M.P. No. 8365 & 9565 of 2004                                                                                                         

 The defendants 1, 4 and 6 in O.S. No. 42 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode are the revision petitioners in CRP PD No. 883 of 2004. 2. The fourth defendant in O.S. No. 599 of 2003 on the file of the Sub-court, Namakkal is the petitioner in CRP PD No. 959 of 2004. 3. The revision petitioner in CRP PD No. 959 of 2004 and the second petitioner in CRP PD No. 883 of 2004 have filed copy application in C.A. No. 8260 of 2003 praying the court below to issue certified copy of the certain documents, which was rejected, hence CRP PD No. 959 of 2004 has been filed. 4. The petitioners in CRP PD No. 883 of 2004 have filed I.A. No. 144 8 of 2003 in O.S. No. 42 of 1986 seeking for a direction to summon the suit documents, which was dismissed, hence CRP PD No. 883 of 2004 has been filed. 5. Mr. Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that both the revision petitions have been filed seeking the very same relief of direction to the court below to issue certified copy of certain documents and if any one of the revision petitions is allowed, other revision petition will become infructuous, however, he submits that the court below dismissed the copy application filed in CA No. 8260 of 2003 under the wrong impression that the said documents were not marked. K.R. Sengottuvelu vs Karuppa Naicker on 6 September, 2005 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1493336/ 2 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the below mentioned decisions in support of his case:- i) (Jagatbhai Punjabhai Palkhiwala and others vs. Vikrambhai Punjabhai Palkhiwala and others) AIR 1985 Gujarat 112 wherein in paragraph No. 5 and 6 it was held thus:- "5. This reason given by the learned Trial Judge is not correct and is too technical. If the inspection of the documents could be granted by the court, there is no reason why the persons who were permitted to take inspection cannot take xerox copy of the same. The purpose of the inspection is to know and study the documents. The person who takes inspection can also take notes and even make copies of the same. In view of very large number of documents, the petitioners wanted that they may be permitted to take xerox copies of the same. Their say is that instead of taking inspection and looking at the documents by their own-eyes, they would like to have their view from the camera eye. The request for xerox copies at their own cost is reasonable. Once the Court has granted inspection, this request is merely to make that inspection more effective. By allowing the plaintiff's to take xerox copies, the Court is neither verifying nor certifying them to be true and correct copies. The Plaintiffs will be taking copies for their own purpose in order that they can make effective and detailed study and have proper consultation with their lawyers. That would not only serve the cause of the petitioners, but will also enable the Counsel to render proper assistance to the Court. Since the Court is not verifying or certifying the correctness of the copies, there is no need of the documents to have become part of the record. Since the documents happen to be in the custody of the court, the parties cannot take xerox copies of the same without permission of the Court. But that does not mean that the Court can refuse such permission only on the ground that they have not become part of the record. The reason given is fundamentally erroneous and merely technical. 6. If the xerox copies are not permitted to be taken, the purpose of the inspection will become ineffective and would be frustrated. No harm or prejudice can occur to the other side if the xerox copies are permitted to be taken. However, only care is required to be taken to see that while the xerox copies are being taken, an officer of the Court appointed by the trial court remains present and retains the custody of the documents and the representative of the other side is also allowed to remain present so that no allegation is made in future. The cost and remuneration of the court officer appointed for that purpose will have to be borne by the petitioners and the amount will have to be deposited by them as may be quantified by the trial court. The defendants would also be entitled to have the same facility subject to the similar conditions." ii) (K. Nagarajan vs. K.S. Ramasamy and another) (2003) 3 M.L.J. 211 wherein in paragraph Nos. 13 and 14, it was held thus:- "13. In (Jagatbhai Punjabhai Palkhiwala and others vs. Vikrambhai Punjabhai Palkhiwala and others) AIR 1985 Gujarat 112, while dealing with such a situation, the Gujarat High Court has held as follows:- 5. This reason given by the learned Trial Judge is not correct and is too technical. If the inspection of the documents could be granted by the court, there is no reason why the persons who were K.R. Sengottuvelu vs Karuppa Naicker on 6 September, 2005 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1493336/ 3 permitted to take inspection cannot take xerox copy of the same. The purpose of the inspection is to know and study the documents. The person who takes inspection can also take notes and even make copies of the same. In view of very large number of documents, the petitioners wanted that they may be permitted to take xerox copies of the same. Their say is that instead of taking inspection and looking at the documents by their own-eyes, they would like to have their view from the camera eye. The request for xerox copies at their own cost is reasonable. Once the Court has granted inspection, this request is merely to make that inspection more effective. By allowing the plaintiff's to take xerox copies, the Court is neither verifying nor certifying them to be true and correct copies. The Plaintiffs will be taking copies for their own purpose in order that they can make effective and detailed study and have proper consultation with their lawyers. That would not only serve the cause of the petitioners, but will also enable the Counsel to render proper assistance to the Court. Since the Court is not verifying or certifying the correctness of the copies, there is no need of the documents to have become part of the record. Since the documents happen to be in the custody of the court, the parties cannot take xerox copies of the same without permission of the Court. But that does not mean that the Court can refuse such permission only on the ground that they have not become part of the record. The reason given is fundamentally erroneous and merely technical. 6. If the xerox copies are not permitted to be taken, the purpose of the inspection will become ineffective and would be frustrated. No harm or prejudice can occur to the other side if the xerox copies are permitted to be taken. However, only care is required to be taken to see that while the xerox copies are being taken, an officer of the Court appointed by the trial court remains present and retains the custody of the documents and the representative of the other side is also allowed to remain present so that no allegation is made in future. The cost and remuneration of the court officer appointed for that purpose will have to be borne by the petitioners and the amount will have to be deposited by them as may be quantified by the trial court. The defendants would also be entitled to have the same facility subject to the similar conditions. 14. In any suit apart from the documents marked, there is likelihood of presence of other unmarked documents like warrant issued to the Commissioner or notice given to the Commissioner by the parties etc., Assuming that a party disputes receipt of notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner, the notice said to have been given by the Commissioner will become an important document and certainly copy of such notice shall be required by the other party who claims that actually notice has been given to the party who disputes it. Though the notice given by the Commissioner to the party may not be a part of the record as far as the suit is concerned, since it is not marked as an exhibit in the suit, still a notice can become necessary for a particular party for which he may require copy. Therefore, the document produced in Court even though not marked as a document in evidence in a suit, still necessity may arise for requirement of a certified copy of such a document. That is why under O.62 and O.11, Rule 15 of Civil Rules of Practice, it is clearly mentioned that any document produced in Court can be inspected. The terms mentioned in Rule 62 and O.11, Rule 15 of Civil Rules of Practice are wider in nature, in the sence that the documents referred are not only marked but also produced in Court." 7. The provisions of Rule 62 of Civil Rules of Practice contemplates that a party shall be at liberty to inspect and obtain a copy of any document recited or referred to in a plaint or written statement and K.R. Sengottuvelu vs Karuppa Naicker on 6 September, 2005 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1493336/ 4 filed in Court therewith or thereafter. 8. Similarly, the provisions of Order 11 Rule 15 CPC contemplates thus:- "15. Inspection of documents referred to in pleadings or affidavits.- Every party to a suit shall be entitled (at or before the settlement of issues) to give notice to any other party, in whose pleadings or affidavits reference is made to any document (or who has entered any document in any list annexed to his pleadings) to produce such document for the inspection of the party giving such notice, or of his pleader, and to permit him or them to take copies thereof; and any party not complying with such notice shall not afterwards be at liberty to put any such document in evidence on his behalf in such suit unless he shall satisfy the Court that such document relates only to his own title, he being a defendant in the suit, or that he had some other cause or excuse which the Court shall deem sufficient for not complying with such notice, in which case the Court may allow the same to be put in evidence on such terms as to costs and otherwise as the Court shall think fit." 9. It is seen from the above provisions of Law that the parties to the pleadings are entitled to certified copy of the documents, even though the documents, which are filed along with the pleadings were not marked. The decisions extracted above also clarify the same in terms of Civil Rules of Practice. Both the courts below namely the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode as well as the Sub-Court, Namakkal, without proper consideration of the said provisions of Law dismissed the I.A. No. 1448 of 2002 and C.A. No. 8260 of 2003 respectively. Hence, the impugned order passed in both the revision petition are liable to be set aside. 10. In view of the fact that if any one of the revision petitions is allowed, the purpose sought for by the petitioner will be served, it is sufficient, and accordingly the Sub-court, Namakkal is directed to issue certified copies of the documents sought for by the petitioner in C.A. No. 8260 of 2003 expeditiously and CRP PD No. 959 of 2004 is allowed accordingly. No costs. 11. In view of the order passed in CRP PD No. 959 of 2004, no order is required in CRP PD No. 883 of 2004 and the same is closed. No costs. Connected CMPs are closed. rsh Index : Yes Website : Yes To 1. The District Munsif District Munsif Court Tiruchengode 2. The Subordinate Judge Sub-Court, Namakkal  K.R. Sengottuvelu vs Karuppa Naicker on 6 September, 2005 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1493336/ 5

Before numbering the suit, Court cannot go into the merits of the matter without giving any opportunity to petitioner. A case law

 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY 

C.R.P.No.1209 of 2020                         Kade Kumara Swamy Vs Again Pandu

ORDER 

This civil revision petition is filed against the order 

dated 01.10.2020 passed in S.R.No.1725 of 2020 by the learned 

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District,

rejecting the suit filed by petitionBr for perpetual injunction 

restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the 

peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. 

2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even before 

numbering the suit, the Court below went into the merits of the 

matter and rejected the plaint. He further submits that the plaint can 

only be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, but the Court below 

without quoting the said provision and without giving any opportunity 

of hearing to petitioner rejected the plaint. He also submits that on 

earlier OCcasion, this Court in C.R.P No.1118 of 2020 

dated 04.11.2020, has set aside similar order of rejection of plaint 

passed by the same Presiding Officer. Thus, he prays to allow the 

revision setting aside the order impugned. 

3. A perusal of the material or record goes to show that this 

Court in C R.P.No.1118 of 2020 dated 04.11.2020, has set aside the 

order of rejection of plaint dated 01.10.2020 in S.R.No.1724 of 2020 

passed by the same Presiding Officer. While allowing the said 

revision, this Court observed that even before numbering the suit 

and without giving any opportunity to petitioner therein, the Court 

below recorded such adverse findings and passed the order without

application of mind. Even the impugned order goes to show that before numbering the suit, the Court below has gone into the merits 

of the matter without giving any opportunity to petitioner and rejected 

the plaint without quoting any provision of law. 

In view of the above and for the reasons alike in 

CRPNo 1118 of 2020 dated 04.11.2020, this Civil Revision Petition 

IS allowed. setting aside the order impugned, and the mater is 

remitted back to the Court below to number the suit, if the same is 

otherwise in order, and proceed in accordance with law. No order as 

to costs 

5 Registry is directed to take steps for sending the Presiding 

Officer of the Court below for training before the Telangana Judicial 

Academy Hyderabad. The concerned District Judge is also directed 

to call for explanation from the concerned Officer 

6 Miscellaneous petitions, if any. pending in this revision shall 

stand closed 

Sd/-M. MANJULA 

ASSISTANT  

Court requiring the plaintiff to produce the originals thereof as a condition precedent for registration of the suit was erroneous in law. A case law

Andhra High Court

Pujari Narsaiah vs Modem Sudhaker, Hasanparthy ... on 20 March, 2015

 
 THE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR          

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.904 OF 2015     

20-03-2015 

Pujari Narsaiah Petitioner

Modem Sudhaker, Hasanparthy  Mandal, Warangal District, and another.   
Respondents  

Counsel for Petitioner  : Sri Venkateshwar Varanasi 

Counsel for Respondents: --

<GIST: 

>HEAD NOTE:    


?CASES REFERRED:      

 1. 2010 (4) ALD 273
 2.  2011 (4) ALD 775

THE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR          

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.904 OF 2015     

O R D E R 

By order dated 20.11.2014 passed in S.R.No.6227 of 2014 in un-registered O.S.No.Nil of 2014, the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal, directed the plaintiff therein to file the original cheque dated 22.09.2014 issued in his favour by the second defendant along with an authenticated copy of the agreement dated 22.07.2014 for further scrutiny, failing which the plaint stood rejected. Aggrieved, the plaintiff is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

As the order under revision was passed by the trial Court even before registration of the suit, this Court does not deem it necessary to put the respondents/defendants on notice in this case.

The subject suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.22,13,000/- from the defendants with interest and costs. His claim was based on an alleged agreement of sale dated 08.12.2012, whereunder he claimed to have paid them advances, and the cheque dated 22.09.2014, allegedly issued by the second defendant towards part-refund. The office appears to have raised an objection requiring the plaintiff to file the original cheque. Arguments were advanced thereon before the trial Court leading to the order under revision.

It is not in dispute that the plaintiff filed photocopies of the subject cheque and agreement dated 22.07.2014 along with the plaint. The trial Court however observed that it would have been more appropriate for the plaintiff to indicate the whereabouts of the originals of these documents in the plaint and explain his difficulty in producing them. The trial Court concluded that return of the plaint in these circumstances could not be taken to be rejection thereof and that the objection raised by the office could not be deemed improper. The trial Court therefore held that the plaintiff should produce the original cheque dated 22.09.2014 and an authenticated copy of the agreement dated 22.07.2014, failing which the plaint was liable to be rejected.

It is clear from the order under revision that the trial Court did not treat the case on hand as one relating to rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The trial Court was however of the opinion that failure to comply with the office objection would still entail rejection of the plaint. The lapse of the plaintiff, according to the trial Court, was that he failed to file certain documents along with the plaint and he did not explain as to where their originals were. Reliance was placed by the trial Court on Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders 1980 (for brevity, the Civil Rules of Practice). However, the Civil Rules of Practice would always be subject to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is in this regard that Order 7 Rule 14 CPC and Order 13 Rule 1 CPC, which were not considered by the trial Court, would gain relevance. Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, to the extent relevant, reads as under:

14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies:--

(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.

(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.

(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.

.

Thus, under Order 7 Rule 14(1) CPC, the plaintiff is only required to produce the originals of the documents which are in his possession or power at the time of presentation of the plaint. Order 7 Rule 14(2) CPC makes it clear that, wherever possible, the plaintiff shall state in his plaint as to in whose possession or power any document, which ought to have been produced by him and has not been so produced, is. The duty cast upon the plaintiff is therefore not in absolute terms. Further, Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC makes it clear that when the plaintiff fails to produce a document which ought to have been produced by him along with the plaint or he fails to enter such document in the list annexed to the plaint, he shall not be permitted to adduce such document in evidence without the leave of the Court. This provision therefore puts it beyond doubt that neither the failure to produce a document along with the plaint nor the failure in entering the details of such document in the list annexed to the plaint would be fatal to the suit at the time of its registration and such lapse on his part would still be curable upon his obtaining the leave of the Court.

Order 13 Rule 1 CPC deals with production of original documents and, to the extent relevant, reads as under:

1. Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues:-

(1) The parties or their pleader shall produce on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original where the copies thereof have been filed along with the plaint or written statement. ...

The above provision manifests that production of documents in original, when photocopies thereof have been filed along with the plaint, would be necessary only at or before settlement of the issues. Significantly, in the case on hand, the plaintiff had filed photocopies of both the documents in question. Further, the office had raised an objection only as regards production of the original cheque and had not adverted to the agreement dated 22.07.2014. It appears that the trial Court, while hearing arguments on the office objection, brought up this additional issue.

Reliance on Rule 22 of the Civil Rules of Practice by the trial Court appears to be misplaced. Rule 22(2) requires the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court to make an endorsement on the plaint, when he finds that the plaint complies with all the requirements, that he had examined the same and that it may be registered. There is no requirement prescribed in Rule 22 of the Civil Rules of Practice that all original documents relied upon must invariably be produced along with the plaint. In fact, no such requirement could have been prescribed in the said rule as it would have run contra to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, referred to supra.

It may be noticed that in MOHD. OSMAN ALI V/s. SECOND JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD , this Court pointed out that it is no part of the duty of the trial Court to examine, at the stage of scrutiny and registration of the suit, whether the plaintiff had adduced sufficient documentary evidence in support of his prayer in the suit. This Court held that the trial Court cannot, at the scrutiny stage, insist on the plaintiff to file the documents, which, in its opinion are relevant for granting relief. Again, in DANTALA PRAVEEN V/s. BAIRABOINA VEERAMMA , this Court observed that at the stage of presentation of the suit, the trial Court can only insist on strict compliance with the provisions of the Code and reject the plaint only if it is satisfied that one or more of the grounds mentioned in Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code are present. This Court further observed that it is not the function of the trial Court to involve itself in examination of a purported discrepancy in a minute manner and reject the plaint on such ground at the threshold as such a procedure is not sanctioned by law.

In the light of the aforestated legal position, the approach of the trial Court in examining the merits of the suit claim on the strength of the photocopies placed before it and requiring the plaintiff to produce the originals thereof as a condition precedent for registration of the suit was erroneous in law. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, referred to hereinabove, make it clear that a plaintiff who fails to produce a document or mention it in the list of documents appended to the plaint, only runs the risk of having such documentary evidence excluded unless he obtains the leave of the Court thereafter. Further, originals of the photocopies of documents filed along with the plaint can, in any event, be produced at or before settlement of the issues.

In that view of the matter, the order under revision is unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. The trial Court is directed to entertain the subject suit and register the same if it is otherwise found to be in order.

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

-------------------------------------

SANJAY KUMAR, J 20TH MARCH, 2015

Whether son and grandson have right in property which father got in partition?

 

Whether son and grandson have right in property which father got in partition?    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5415 of 2011

Decided On: 02.07.2018

Shyam Narayan Prasad Vs. Krishna Prasad and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Manohar Sapre and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.

Citation: (2018) 7 SCC 646

Therefore, the properties acquired by Defendant No. 2 in the partition dated 31.07.1987 although are separate property qua other relations but it is a coparcenary property insofar as his sons and grandsons are concerned. In the instant case, there is a clear finding by the trial court that the properties are ancestral properties which have been divided as per the deed of partition dated 31.07.1987. The property which had fallen to the share of Defendant No. 2 retained the character of a coparcenary property and the Plaintiffs being his sons and grandson have a right in the said property. Hence, it cannot be said that the suit filed by the Plaintiffs was not maintainable.

Shyam Narayan Prasad Vs. Krishna Prasad and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Manohar Sapre and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.

Citation: (2018) 7 SCC 646