C.Chandirapraksh, v. Sumathi
Case brief
What is this about?
This bench quashed the trial court's order permitting respondents to produce unpleaded documents after evidence closure, holding such admission violates Order 8 Rule 1(A) CPC due to lack of pleadings and prejudice.
What did the court decide?
Set aside the order dated 05.12.2017 allowing production of unpleaded documents and dismissed the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
What the court decided
C.R.P.(P.D). Nos. 122 & 123 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P (PD) No. 122 & 123 of 2018
1.C.Chandiraprakash
2.C.Dhakshinamoorthy
3.S.Mani
4.R.Manickam
5.K.S.Sivamalai
6.R.A.Jaganathan
7.B.Pathamachand Jain ... Petitioners in both CRPs
Vs.
1.Sumathi
2.Sathyavathi
3.Karthikeyan
4.Alli
5.Banumathi
6.Balasubramaniam ... Respondents in both CRPs
Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order and decree dated 05.12.2017 made in I.A.Nos.972 & 1069 of 2017 in O.S.No.665 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For R1 & R2 : Mr.C.Jagadesh For R3 to R6 : Notice served
1/10
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court should have allowed respondents to produce documentary evidence not mentioned in their written statement under Order 8 Rule 1(A) CPC.
Whether introducing new documents after a long delay without prior pleading causes prejudice to the plaintiffs.
Whether a civil revision petition should succeed when evidence is admitted contrary to settled legal precedent on pleading requirements.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
C.Chandiraprakash
- petitioner
C.Dhakshinamoorthy
- petitioner
S.Mani
- petitioner
R.Manickam
- petitioner
K.S.Sivamalai
- petitioner
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court