← Library
Madras High CourtCRP(MD)/1658/2016dismissed

Gopalakrishnan, v. Kaliyaperumal, S/O

2016-11-01Honourable Mr Justice D. Krishnakumar3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.11.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1658 of 2016 and C.M.P(MD)No.8099 of 2016 Gopalakrishnan ... Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant Vs.

Kaliyaperumal through his Power Agent, A.G.R.Muthuraman Naidu ... Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 23.02.2016, passed in I.A.No.553 of 2015 in O.S.No.105 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi.

For Appellant : Mr.G.Sridharan For Respondent : Mr.K.Baalasundaram

ORDER

The revision petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S.No.105 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi, has filed this Civil Revision Petition challenging the order passed in I.A.No.553 of 2015 in O.S.No.105 of 2008, dated 23.02.2016.

2. According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant, the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.105 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi, for declaration, declaring the alleged sale deed dated 23.10.1996 as null and void and also that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit properties as his absolute properties and consequential injunction. The respondent/plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and he was also cross-examined and therefore, the matter was posted for further evidence on the side of the respondent/plaintiff. At that stage, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.553 of 2015 in O.S.No.105 of 2008 to receive the additional documents after condoning the delay in filing the said documents. The petitioner/defendant also filed his objections to the said application, by stating that the documents sought to be marked are all secondary evidence and they were

available at the time of filing of the suit and there was a mentioning about the production of the documents. However, the said application was allowed in spite of the objections made by the revision petitioner/defendant. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner/defendant has filed this Civil Revision Petition before this Court.

3. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that the instant application in I.A.No.553 of 2015 filed by the respondent/plaintiff to receive the additional documents after condoning the delay, for the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the said application. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the said certified copy of the document could not be able to obtain from the Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi and the said document and some of the documents also got mixed with the old case bundles and therefore, the instant application has been filed and hence, the trial Court has rightly allowed the said application filed by the respondent/plaintiff.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.105 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif, Aranthangi against the revision petitioner for declaration, declaring the alleged sale deed dated 23.10.1996 as null and void and also that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit properties as his absolute properties and consequential injunction.

In the said suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.553 of 2015 to receive the additional documents and also sought to condone the delay in filing the said document before the trial Court, as some of the documents got mixed with the other case bundles and therefore, the respondent/plaintiff could not be able to produce the same at the time of filing of the suit before the trial Court.

6. It is seen that in the plaint, the respondent/plaintiff made a reference about the criminal case in C.C.No. 394 of 2003 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Aranthangi. Therefore, the said document has been received from the Judicial Magistrate Court, Aranthangi, and the same is filed before the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi along with I.A.No.553 of 2015.

7. The trial Court has allowed the said application seeking to produce additional documents. Challenging the same, the revision petitioner/defendant has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

8. At this juncture, it is relevant to reproduce hereunder Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure:

"14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.- ***** ***** ***** *****

(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit."

9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has considered the facts and circumstances of the case and accepted the reasons stated therein and rightly allowed the said application and hence, this Court finds that no interference is warranted in the interest of justice. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said order.

10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the revision petitioner/defendant shall be given an opportunity to object the said documents, at the time of marking of the same. Further, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.105 of 2008 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

Sd/ Assistant Registrar(A.E.,) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The District Munsif Court, Aranthangi.

+1cc to M/s.G.Sridharan, Advocate, in SR No.64800. +1cc to M/s.K.Baalasundharam, Advocate, in SR No.64640. C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1658 of 2016 and C.M.P(MD)No.8099 of 2016 01.11.2016 rsb msm/mpa/23.11.16/p3/4c