Allowed

Mr. Vijay Nahar, v. Mr. Anil Nahar

Madras HC4 Oct 2016OSA/168/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Original Side Appeal challenges a Single Judge order requiring defendants to submit xerox copies of documents before originals. The High Court held that when originals are available, they must first be exhibited, followed by authenticated xerox copies. The impugned order is set aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Respondents directed to mark original documents first, then substitute with authenticated xerox copies.

Mr. Vijay Nahar, Vs Mr. Anil Nahar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Reserved on : 21-09-2016

¶3

Pronounced on: 04-10-2016

¶4

Coram:

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.SELVAM

¶6

and

¶7

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.KALAIYARASAN

¶8

O.S.A.No.168 of 2016
Mr. Vijay Nahar .. Appellant/Plaintiff

¶9

Vs.
1. Mr. Anil Nahar
2. M/s. Transworld Exports (P) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Director, Mr. Anil Nahar
No.15-A, New No.21, Kannadasan Road
T.Nagar, Chennai - 17 .. Respondents/Defendants

¶10

Original Side Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule 9 of Original Side Rules against the order of this Court dated 05-04-2016 made in C.S.No.86 of 2004.

¶11

For Appellant : Mrs. Chithra Sampath, Senior Counsel for V.G. Suresh Kumar

¶12

For Respondents : Mr. K. Ramu

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

(JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WAS DELIVERED BY A.SELVAM, J.)

¶15

This Original Side Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05-04-2016 passed in C.S.No.86 of 2004 by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

¶16

The appellant herein, as plaintiff, has instituted C.S.No.86 of 2004 on the file of this Court praying to declare that the plaintiff is having half share in the suit properties and also for getting perpetual injunction wherein the present

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

respondents have been shown as defendants.

¶19

On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 has been examined. After closure of evidence on the side of the plaintiff, on the side of defendants, D.W.1 has been examined in part. At the time of examination of D.W.1, an attempt has been made to mark xerox copies and objection has been raised. The Additional Master No.III has referred the issue to the learned Single Judge.

¶20

The learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions raised on either side in Paragraph No.18 of the judgment has observed as follows:

¶21

“The defendant shall furnish the colour xerox copies of the documents which are required to be maintained in the above said Registers and the same shall be marked by the learned Additional Master -III and seal shall also be put on the concerned original documents after comparing the colour xerox copies with the original documents available in the said Registers and return the originals to the defendants for the purpose of statutory compliance. It is needless to say that as and when this Court requires the original of the said documents, it shall be produced before this Court for the purpose of inspection and enquiry and passing appropriate orders. It is also made clear that reception of documents in evidence is subject to admissibility, proof and relevancy.”

¶22

The order passed by the learned Single Judge is being challenged in the present Original Side Appeal by the plaintiff as appellant.

¶23

The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant /plaintiff has laconically contended that on the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 has been examined and after closure of evidence on the side of the plaintiff, on the side of the defendants, D.W.1 has been examined in part and at the time of examination, an attempt has been made to mark xerox copies without marking original documents. Under the said circumstances, objection has been raised. But the learned Single Judge without considering the inquisite law has erroneously passed the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶24

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants has contended that the concerned Registers are required for day to day administration. Under the said circumstances, the learned Single Judge after considering the statutory requirement has rightly passed the impugned order as mentioned in Paragraph No.18 of the judgment and the same does not suffer from any infirmity and therefore, the present

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

Original Side Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶27

The only issue involved in the present Original Side Appeal is as to whether without marking original documents xerox copies can be marked ?

¶28

As rightly pointed out on the side of the appellant/plaintiff, the legal procedure is that initially original documents have to be exhibited. If there is no urgency to get back the same, xerox copies can be submitted so as to substitute the original documents already marked as exhibits. In the instant case, it is seen from the records that D.W.1 has attempted to marked only xerox copies. When original documents are available it is not legally permissible to mark xerox copies. But the learned Single Judge has also upheld the contentions put forth on the side of the defendants and ultimately passed the impugned order as indicated supra.

¶29

It has already been pointed out that when original documents are available, the same must be exhibited and subsequently, substituted by way of submitting authenticated xerox copies. But the learned Single Judge has passed inverse order and the same is not factually and legally sustainable and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.

¶30

In fine, this Original Side Appeal is allowed without costs. The order passed in C.S.No.86 of 2004 by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The respondents/defendants are directed to mark the original documents. After marking, if necessary substitute the same immediately by way of submitting authenticated xerox copies. The Additional Master – III is directed to return the original documents after substituting the same with authenticated xerox copies.

¶31

-s/dAssistant Registrar

¶32

True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar glp

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

¶35

The Sub Assistant Registrar Original Side High Court, Madras

¶36

+1 cc to Mr.K.Ramu Advocate sr 57425 dated 25/11/2016

¶37

O.S.A.No.168 of 2016

¶38

aa20/10/2016

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mr. Vijay Nahar, v. Mr. Anil Nahar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Vijay Nahar, v. Mr. Anil Nahar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saraswathi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

R.Senthil Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S. Madras Elastomers Ltd. Vs Kamal Chand

Jayanthi 21 Years Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

D.Anjali Vs the Secretary to the

Mrs.Divyabharathi Vs the Secretary to Government