Allowed¶44

Dr.Vasantha Rajamanickam v. Indira Devaraj Bhat

Madras HC3 Nov 2025A/1746/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Return of original plaint documents; substitution with certified copies; Order XIII Rule 9 CPC; Order XIV Rule 8 Original Side Rules; Section 151 CPC; non-admitted documents; undertaking to produce documents at trial; audit purpose; Judges Summons; Madras High Court Original Side; A. No. 1746 of 2025; C.S. No. 955 of 2017; Dr.Vasantha Rajamanickam; AL.Umayal sale deed 19.05.1976; development agreement 01.12.1993; agreement of sale 16.07.2017; approved sale deed 17.07.2017; rejoinder letter 07.12.2017.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed without costs; Registry directed to compare the certified copies with the originals and return the original documents (Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 15) to the plaintiff after substituting certified copies, on the plaintiff's undertaking to produce the originals at the time of trial. ¶44

Dr.Vasantha Rajamanickam Vs Indira Devaraj Bhat — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the Registry should return original plaint document Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 15 filed by the plaintiff in C.S. No. 955 of 2017 and substitute certified copies, so that the applicant/plaintiff can use the originals for auditing. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

Apart from the counter's point on the unexplained accounting/auditing purpose, the remaining points pleaded in the fifth respondent's counter concern the merits of the case and are not relevant to the application for return of documents with substitution by certified copies.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The Order XIII Rule 9 CPC return procedure relates to admitted documents; the documents sought here are not admitted documents, so it is at the pleasure of the applicant/plaintiff either to retain them or get them back, and producing them again to mark as evidence at trial is at the plaintiff's risk.

¶38

Key takeaways

As the applicant needs the documents for audit purposes, the documents are ordered to be returned to the plaintiff on his undertaking that they will be produced at the time of trial.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Single Judge, Dr. R.N.MANJULA, J.) allowed A. No. 1746 of 2025 filed in C.S. No. 955 of 2017 under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order XIII Rule 9 and Section 151 CPC, directing the Registry to return original plaint documents Sl. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 15 (including a 19.05.1976 sale deed executed by AL.Umayal, a patta, development and sale agreements, correspondence and an approved sale deed) to the applicant/plaintiff Dr.Vasantha Rajamanickam after substituting certified copies. Held: the Order XIII Rule 9 CPC return mechanism applies to admitted documents; these non-admitted documents are returned at the plaintiff's pleasure and risk, on an undertaking to produce them at the time of trial; the fifth respondent's counter objections going to the merits were irrelevant to the application. No costs.

¶1

A. No. 1746 of 2025 and C.S. No. 955 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

A. No. 1746 of 2025 and C.S. No. 955 of 2017

¶7

Dr.Vasantha Rajamanickam

¶8

...Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.Indira Devaraj Bhat 2.Mahendra Kumar Singhvi 3.G.V.Lakshmi Baskaran 4.Sandeep Kumar 5.N.Baaskaran 6.S.Jeeva 7.Siva Sankar 8.Mahalakshmi 9.S.Ramesh Kumar ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer : This application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order XIII Rule 9 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, to direct the Registry to return the original plaint document Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 15 filed by the plaintiff in C.S. No. 955 of 2017 and substitute the same with certified copy of the same.

¶12

For applicant : M/s.R.Ramya

¶13

Page 1 of 6

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

For Respondents : M/s.F.Kamal Baig (D9) Mr.T.M.Mano (D10) Mr.M.Nandakumar (D3) Mr.M.Jawahar (D1)

¶16

A. No. 1746 of 2025

¶17

and C.S. No. 955 of 2017

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The application has been filed to return the original plaint

¶20

document Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 15 filed by the plaintiff in C.S. No. 955 of 2017 and substitute the same with certified copies of the same.

¶21

2 . The learned counsel for the applicant /plaintiff submitted that the above documents mentioned in the Judges Summons are required for the purpose of auditing and for the above purpose, the original of those documents already filed along with the plaint have to be returned by substituting them with the certified copies of the same.

¶22

3. The above application has been opposed by the fifth respondent, who has filed his counter stating that the fifth respondent is not able to understand what kind of accounting and auditing the above documents are required.

¶23

4. On perusal of the counter filed by the fifth respondent, excepting Page 2 of 6

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

A. No. 1746 of 2025 and C.S. No. 955 of 2017

¶26

the above points the rest of the points pleaded in the counter are about the merits of the case, which are not relevant to the application filed to return

¶27

of documents seeking permission to substitute them with the certified copies.

¶28

5. On perusal of the plaint, the documents against Sl. Nos. 1, 2, 3,

¶29

6, 7, 9, 11 and 15 filed by the plaintiff in C.S. No. 955 of 2017 are described as under:-

¶30

S. *No.*	*Date*	*Description of Documents*	*Nature*
1.	19.05.1976	Original Sale deed executed by AL.Umayal in favour of the 1^stdefendant and her husband	Original
2.	10.09.2005	Patta in the names of the 1^stdefendant and her husband	Original
3.	01.12.1993	Original Agreement of Development entered between the 1^stdefendant, her husband and the plaintiff	Original
6.	10.07.2017	Hand written Letter sent by the 1^stdefendant to the plaintiff	Original
7.		Draft sale deed handed over by the 1^st defendant to the plaintiff's husband	Original
9.	16.07.2017	Original Agreement of Sale entered into between the 1^stdefendant and the plaintiff	Original
11.	17.07.2017	Original approved sale deed printed on non- judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/-	Original

¶31

Page 3 of 6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

S.
No.

¶34

A. No. 1746 of 2025 and C.S. No. 955 of 2017

¶35

S. *No.*	*Date*	*Description of Documents*	*Nature*
15	07.12.2017	Rejoinder letter sent by the plaintiff to the 1^st defendant's reply letter dated 09.11.2017 sent by registered post acknowledgment due	Original

¶36

6. Admittedly, these documents were not in the custody of the defendants at any time before.

¶37

7. The learned counsel for the applicant /plaintiff submitted that as per Order XIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, any person, whether a party to the suit or not, desirous of receiving back any document produced by him in the suit and placed on the record shall, unless the document is impounded under rule 8, be entitled to receive back the same.

¶38

8. However, the above procedure is with regard to the admitted documents, but now these documents, which are sought to be returned are not admitted documents. Hence, it is at the pleasure of the applicant /plaintiff either to retain the documents or to get back the documents. It is at the risk of the plaintiff to produce these documents again if at all the Page 4 of 6

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

A. No. 1746 of 2025 and C.S. No. 955 of 2017

¶41

plaintiffs intend to mark these documents as evidence on the side of the plaintiff.

¶42

9. As the documents now sought are unexpected documents and the applicant has submitted that he is in need of those documents for audit purposes, I feel that these documents are ordered to be returned to the plaintiff on his undertaking that these documents will be produced at the time of trial.

¶43

10. Hence, this application is allowed. The Registry shall compare

¶44

the certified copies of those documents along with the originals and return the original documents, after substituting with the certified copies of the same. No costs.

¶45

03.11.2025

¶46

Maya

¶47

Dr. R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶48

Maya

¶49

Page 5 of 6

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis