High Court rejected civil revision petition seeking to quash an order dismissing an application to produce further documents. Bench held no interference warranted as documents must primarily be produced during trial, though petitioner may confront plaintiff with written statement admission.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.04.2021
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.R.P. (NPD) No.861 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.7083 of 2021
Rajeswari
.. Petitioner / Petitioner / Defendant
Vs
R.Saravanan .. Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the records pertaining to fair and decreetal order dated 22.01.2021 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.363 of 2019 on the file of Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Salem, and set aside the same.
For Petitioner .. Mr.S.Pushpakaran
For Respondent .. No appearance
ORDER
2
The defendant in O.S.No.363 of 2019 had been filed I.A.No.1 of 2020 under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC seeking permission to produce further documents. This application came up for consideration before the Principal District Munsif, Salem on 22.01.2021 and the learned Judge had dismissed the said application. Among the reasons given, was that document No.1 which is the legal notice had actually been issued subsequent to institute of the suit and document No.2 is an online copy and document Nos.3 to 5 are xerox copies.
2.Heard Mr.S.Pushpakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant in the suit.
3.The learned counsel took this Court through the written statement filed. In paragraph 5 of the written statement, it had been stated that the plaintiff had received the said documents from the defendant and only after that had given a loan of Rs.12,00,000/-. These are documents which the defendant now wants to produce as additional documents. Since the defendant had stated it is as a fact in the written statement, he could very well be that during the crossexamination of the plaintiff and confront the plaintiff with the documents.
4.The documents should however be admissible and relevant.
3
It is also be kept in mind that primarily the documents have to be produced during the course of trial. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Salam passed in the Interlocutory Application which is now subject matter of this Revision Petition.
5.However, as stated since trial has not commenced the
petitioner herein / defendant in suit can take advantage of the fact that he had already mentioned about handing over documents in the
written statement and may if so advised confront the plaintiff with such statement.
6.In view of the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 17.04.2021 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No smv
To The Principal District Court, Salem.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
4
smv
C.R.P.(NPD) No.861 of 2021
17.04.2021
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's dismissal of an application to produce further documents as evidence.
Whether documents mentioned in a written statement can be produced later during the trial.
Whether the production of a legal notice issued after the institution of the suit is admissible.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajeswari
R. Saravanan
C.V. Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
