Allowed

M/S.Asianet Communications Ltd. v. Mr.S.Parthasarathy

Madras HC10 Oct 2018A/5135/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the plaintiff-applicant to file and receive nine additional documents, treating the original prayer to mark documents as equivalent, subject to proof of relevance.

What did the court decide?

Permitted the applicant to file and receive nine additional documents (plaint document No.1, photocopies of Nos.2,3,5,6,7,8, original letter dated 21.02.2017, original plaint Doc No.4, and lab letter

M/S.Asianet Communications Ltd. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

A.No.5135 of 2017
in
C.S.No.205 of 2011
1. M/s Asianet Communications Ltd
Rep.by its Company Secretary
Mr.B.K.Baburajan
Asianet Complex
Puliyarakonam P.O.
Thiruvananthapuram
Applicant/Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Mr.S.Parthasarathy
Proprietor, V.J.Vision
15/6, Vanamali Apartments
Singaram Street
T.Nagar
Chennai 600 017
2. Mr.S.S.T Lakshmanan
D-5, Rajaram Colony
Jayabaratham Street
Kodambakkam
Chennai 600 034

¶7

3.M/s.Evershine Release Rep by its Partner Mr.S.S.T.Subramaniam P.B.No.3534,Ernakulam Kochi 682 035

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

4.M/s.Evershine Release Rep by its Partner Mr.S.S.T.Lakshmanan No.17, Habibullah Road, T.Nagar,Chennai 600 017

¶11

5.M/s Pals Communications Pvt Ltd

¶12

Rep by its Chairman Mr.C.H Noushad Kadakkandan buildings Downhill, Malapuram

¶13

Kerala 676 519

¶14

6.M/S Prasad Film Laboratories

¶15

A Unit of Prasad Productions Limited

¶16

Arunachalam Road, Saligramam

¶17

Chennai 600 093

¶18

..Respondents/Defendants

¶19

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased

¶20

to permit the Applicant/Plaintiff to markduly authenticated

¶21

copy of plaint document No.1, photocopies of the plaint document No 2,No.3 along with original letter dated 21.02.2017, original of plaint document No.4 and lab letter dated 21.02.2005, photocopies of plaint document Nos.5,6,7

¶22

and 8 in the above suit.

¶23

This Application coming on this day before this court

¶24

for hearing the court made the following order:

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

Sole plaintiff in the main suit is the lone applicant

¶28

herein.Defendants 1 to 6 in the main suit are Respondents

¶29

1 to 6 respectively in the instant application.

¶30

Parties in this application are referred to by their

¶31

respective ranks in the main suit for the sake of convenience and clarity.

¶32

'Why this Hon'ble Court should not be pleased to permit the applicant/plaintiff to mark duly authenticated copy of plaint Document No.1, photocopies of the plaint Document No.2, No.3 along with original letter dated 21.02.2017, original of plaint Document No.4 and lab letter dated 21.02.2005, photocopies of plaint document Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 in the above suit'

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

4.Learned counsel for first defendant Ms.Vidya takes

¶36

objection to the language in which the prayer is couched

¶37

and says that the prayer is to mark the documents, which is impermissible.

¶38

There is no difficulty in accepting this submission.

¶39

Prayer has to necessarily be for filing and receiving the

¶40

documents. Learned counsel for plaintiff submits that this

¶41

application can be treated as an application for

¶42

filing/receiving nine documents, which have been set out in the schedule to the judges summons.

¶43

Learned counsel for second defendant Mr.Vignesh

¶44

Kumar submits that with regard to Serial No.5, plaintiff

¶45

has not given any reason as to why it was not filed along

¶46

with the plaint. Responding to the same, learned counsel

¶47

for plaintiff submits that the same could not be filed as it was not available at that point of time.

¶48

However, it appears prima facie that Serial No.5 is

¶49

imperative for deciding the lis. In the light of the

¶50

narrative supra, I am of the view that it would serve the

¶51

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

¶52

¶53

ends of justice if this application is allowed with usual rider that nine additional documents set out in the judges' summons should be permitted to be received/filed subject to

¶54

proof and relevance in a manner known to law.

¶55

Application ordered on above terms.
Sd./- M.S.J.
10.10.2018
//Certified to be a true copy//
Dated this the day of 2018.
DL/16.10.2018 COURT OFFICER
From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified

¶56

copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.

¶57

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

M/S.Asianet Communications Ltd. v. Mr.S.Parthasarathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Asianet Communications Ltd. v. Mr.S.Parthasarathy

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

Vs

Dart Industries Inc. Vs Modi Dp Plastics

M/s.Kalanjiyam Cut Piece Vs M/s.Kalanjiyam Textiles

Orient Hardware and Tools Vs Alisager Siawala

Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pegasus Farmaco India (P) Ltd.

V.S.Gadigachallam Vs a.Nagaraj