Meera Kumari, v. Durai Pillai

Madras HC8 Jan 2026CRP/55/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Production of documents in suit for rendition of accounts; direction to produce original documents pending trial; disposal of application based on counter affidavit averments; substantial compliance; undertaking to produce originals at trial; xerox copies of book of accounts; admissibility objections; adverse inference for non-production of originals; Article 227 of Constitution of India; Civil Revision Petition; District Judge Karaikal; O.S.No.7 of 2024; I.A.No.4 of 2025; Madras High Court.

What did the court decide?

None — the impugned order was not set aside; the Civil Revision Petition was disposed of with the clarification that, if the respondents do not produce the originals at trial, the petitioner may object to admissibility and seek adverse inference. No order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶¶37

Meera Kumari, Vs Durai Pillai — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court was justified in disposing of the petitioner's application seeking production of original documents by merely recording the averments made in the respondents' counter affidavit, without securing production of the originals of document Nos. 2 to 4. +1 more

¶¶32

Court's answer

As far as documents Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the respondents undertook to file the originals at the time of trial; therefore, the petitioner's request has been substantially met in respect of those documents, and no further direction was called for.

¶¶33

Ratio / Principle

As far as document No.4 is concerned, although only xerox copies of the relevant pages of the original book of accounts have been produced, if the original is not produced at the time of trial it remains open to the petitioner to raise objections as to the admissibility of the document and to seek an adverse inference for non-production of the original documents; accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with this clarification.

¶¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras, CRP No. 55 of 2026 (S. Sounthar, J., 08-01-2026). The plaintiff in O.S.No.7 of 2024 (suit for rendition of accounts) had moved I.A.No.4 of 2025 before the District Judge, Karaikal, seeking direction to the defendants to produce originals of four documents: a sale deed dated 31.07.2006, four Andhara Bank cheques and a deed of acknowledgment both dated 17.07.2020, and the book of accounts for 2020-2021 to 31.03.2023. The Trial Court disposed of the application by recording the counter-affidavit averments — original sale deed not in the defendants' possession (copy filed with the written statement), originals of documents Nos. 2 and 3 to be produced at trial, and xerox copies of relevant account-book pages produced for document No.4 — holding the request substantially complied with. The High Court, on a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, did not disturb that disposal: it accepted the defendants' undertaking respecting originals of documents Nos. 2 and 3 at trial, and clarified that for document No.4, if the original book of accounts is not produced at trial, it will remain open to the petitioner to raise objections to the admissibility of the document and to seek an adverse inference for non-production. Petition disposed of; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

CRP.No.55 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08-01-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶6

CRP No. 55 of 2026 and CMP No.135 of 2026

¶7

Meera Kumari, Rep. by her Power Agent Ragupathy, No.10, Ayyankulathu Street, Kottucherry, Karaikal.

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

Durai Pillai, S/o.Venkatachalam, Residing at No.41, Kannadiar Street, Karaikal.

¶11

2.Venkatesh, S/o.Durai Pillai, Residing at No.41, Kannadiar Street, Karaikal.

¶12

Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the Order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in O.S.No.7 of 2024 dated 18.07.2025 on the file of District Judge, Karaikal.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Ms.BA Nalini for Mr. K.V.Babu

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

CRP.No.55 of 2026

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Civil Revision Petition is filed, challenging the order passed by the

¶20

Trial Court, disposing of the application filed by the petitioner, seeking production of certain documents by the respondents, by recording the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by them.

¶21

The petitioner herein/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.7 of 2024 against the respondents/defendants seeking rendition of accounts. Pending suit, instant application has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents/ defendants to produce the following documents.

¶22

i ) Original sale deed dated 31.07.2006.

¶23

ii) Original 4 Nos. of Andhara Bank Cheque dated 17.07.2020.

¶24

iii) Original deed of acknowledgment dated 17.07.2020 and

¶25

iv) Original book of accounts for the period of 2020-2021 to 31.03.2023.

¶26

The respondents/defendants filed counter stating that the original of first document, namely sale deed dated 31.07.2006 was not in their possession and they already produced the copy of the same along with the written

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

CRP.No.55 of 2026

¶30

statement. It is further stated in the counter that the xerox copies of the documents No.2 and 3 were already filed along with the written statement and they undertook to produce the original of the same at the time of trial. As far as the 4^th document is concerned, xerox copies of the relevant pages of those original book of accounts have been produced by them.

¶31

Recording the above statements made by the respondents/defendants, the trial court disposed of the application filed by the petitioners, holding that the request of the petitioner has been substantially complied with. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this court.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents failed to produce the original of document Nos.2 to 4 and therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have disposed of the application , by recording the averments made by the respondents in their counter.

¶33

As far as the documents No.2 and 3 are concerned, the respondents undertook to file the original of the same at the time of trial. Therefore, the request of the petitioner has been substantially met in respect of document Nos. 3/5

¶34

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

¶35

CRP.No.55 of 2026

¶36

2 and 3. As far as the document No.4 is concerned, the respondents produced xerox copies of the relevant pages of the original book of accounts. If the original document of the same is not produced by the respondents at the time of trial, it is always open to the petitioner to raise objections with regard to the admissibility of the document and also to seek adverse inference for non production of the original documents by the respondents.

¶37