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
No comments:
Post a Comment