This second appeal challenges the dismissal of a suit for money recovery. The court upheld the appellate court's decision to admit a repayment receipt produced despite procedural irregularities, stating Order XIII Rule 1 CPC is not mandatory and the plaintiff suffered no prejudice.
Second appeal dismissed; all interlocutory applications in the appeal closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2016/12TH PHALGUNA, 1937
RSA.No. 93 of 2011 (C)
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN AS.NO. 56/2003 OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, OTTAPALAM)
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS.NO. 127/2000 OF MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, MANNARKKAD)
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
M.L.KANTHAN,
S/O.VADAKKEPRATH LAKSHMANAN CHETTIAR, 83 YEARS, RESIDING AT ARAKURUSSI AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.R.SREEHARI
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
GUNASEKHARAN, S/O.LATE KUNJAMAN @ PARANGODAN, 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOYAKKOTTIL @ POONAKKOTTIL, ARAKURUSSI AMSOM,, PERUMBADARI DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD, DISTRICT, PIN-678 582. MANNARKKAD.P.O.
BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
R.S.A.No.93 of 2011
-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2016
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in a suit for realization of money is in
appeal.
borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- from him on 5.6.2000 and when he demanded the said amount, the defendant issued Ext.A1 cheque in discharge of the said liability. It is also the case of the plaintiff that Ext.A1 cheque was dishonoured when presented for collection and when the defendant was called upon to pay the amount covered by Ext.A1 cheque, he refused to pay the amount covered by the cheque. The suit, in the circumstances, was filed for realization of the amount covered by Ext.A1 cheque.
R.S.A.No.93 of 2011
2
R.S.A.No.93 of 2011
3
the decision of the trial court and dismissed the suit, holding that there is specific pleading regarding the receipt in the reply notice sent by the defendant to the plaintiff and that merely for the reason that the production of a document is not in compliance with the requirements of Rule 1 of Order XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same cannot be ignored. The plaintiff, who is aggrieved by the decision of the appellate court, has thus come up in this second appeal.
also the learned counsel for the respondent.
R.S.A.No.93 of 2011
4
borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff on 20.2.2000 on the strength of a cheque issued by the defendant dated 20.6.2000 and that the amount borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff on 20.2.2000 has been paid back and a receipt has been issued evidencing the said payment. It is beyond dispute that Ext.B1 receipt was produced in court before the trial. When Ext.B1 receipt was confronted with the plaintiff, he initially admitted his signature therein, but later, retracted from the earlier stand and stated that the signature in Ext.B1 is not one subscribed by him. The appellate court compared the signature contained in Ext.B1 with the admitted signatures of the plaintiff as contained in the vakalath, plaint and other documents and found that the signatures are similar. It is on that basis, the appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the suit. I do not find any illegality in the decision of the appellate court. That apart, the plea of discharge being a pure question of fact, the finding rendered on the said plea by the appellate court based on the materials on record
R.S.A.No.93 of 2011 5
cannot be interfered with by this Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. True, Rule 1 of Order XIII of the Code requires that all documents relied on by the parties in support of the contentions raised by them have to be produced before settlement of issues in the suit. It is beyond dispute that there are provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure which enables the party to a suit or proceeding to produce the documents at a later stage of the proceedings including at the appellate or second appellate stage. In other words, the procedural requirement contained in Rule 1 of Order XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be held to be a mandatory requirement. There are long line of authorities to the effect that the provisions contained in Rule 1 of Order XIII of the Code will have to be construed liberally and to the extent possible, the delay in the production of the additional documents shall be condoned by the court. [See. Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy and another vs. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy and others [(1994) 4 SCC 659]. As far
R.S.A.No.93 of 2011
6
as the present case is concerned, as noted above, the disputed document has been produced by the defendant before the commencement of the trial. There is nothing on record to indicate that the plaintiff was subjected to any prejudice on account of the non-production of the aforesaid document before settlement of the issues. The contention raised by the learned counsel based on Rule 1 of Order XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, has to fail.
In the said view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the second appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. All the interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
smm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court erred in accepting a receipt produced by the defendant despite non-compliance with Rule 1 of Order XIII CPC.
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the suit after the appellate court found proof of repayment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy and another vs. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy and othersReferred¶40
Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy and another vs. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy and others [(1994) 4 SCC 659] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M.L.KANTHAN
GUNASEKHARAN
P.B. SURESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
