Suit for recovery on promissory notes; trial court dismissed plaintiff's application to file additional income tax records for want of a document list. High Court set aside the order, holding CPC is a code of fairness, not punishment, and allowed the additional documents.
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.
C.R.P.No.55 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.06.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.55 of 2023
Avinash Malhotra
... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.C.Karthikeyan
2.K.Thenmozhi
... Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order in IA No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.3102 of 2018 dated 08.11.2022 passed by the learned XXI Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Ms.Tanya Kapoor For Respondents : Mr.Shankarvel
O R D E R
This revision seeks to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in
O.S.No.3102 of 2018 dated 08.11.2022 passed by the learned XXI Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai.
The suit has been filed on the foot of four promissory notes dated 05.07.2016. Summons were served on the parties and they entered appearance through counsel and have filed their written statements. Pending the suit, an application was taken
Page 1 of 4
C.R.P.No.55 of 2023
in I.A.No.3 of 2022 seeking for leave of the Court under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC to let in additional evidence. The said application was dismissed on the ground that the list of documents had not been filed.
those have been downloaded from the Income Tax website and have been accompanied by necessary 65B affidavit as required under the Evidence Act. She would state that those documents have already been filed by the petitioner and the fact that the list has not been filed does not vitiate the proceedings under Order 7 Rule 14(3).
Page 2 of 4
C.R.P.No.55 of 2023
of the Court is granted. As pointed out by Ms.Tanya Kapoor, those documents were already available in Court and only the list has not been annexed along with the same. The Code of Civil Procedure is a code of fairness and it is not a tool of punishment in order to hit out at a party for not complying with the same. When there is specific compliance in terms of Order VII Rule 14 that the documents that are relied upon are all Income Tax records and that the certified copies thereof are provided, I fail to see why the learned Trial Judge did not grant permission. Some of the documents have come into force pending the suit and therefore there is no way the plaintiff could have pleaded about those documents at the time of presentation of the plaint.
inclined to grant leave to the petitioner to let in additional documents. The order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.3102 of 2018 dated 08.11.2022 is set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff shall file a list of the documents which have been enclosed in the typed set of papers in order to update the records of the Court. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to let in additional records filed as Document Nos.7 to 10 as filed before this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.
03.06.2024
Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Page 3 of 4
C.R.P.No.55 of 2023
KST
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
KST
To
The XXI Additional City Civil Judge City Civil Court, Chennai.
C.R.P. No.55 of 2023
03.06.2024
Page 4 of 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leave under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC could be refused merely because the plaintiff did not file a list of documents along with certified copies already available on record?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Avinash Malhotra
C. Karthikeyan
K. Thenmozhi
V. Lakshminarayanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
