Madras High Court
C.Chandiraprakash vs Sumathi on 8 April, 2021
C.R.P.(P.D). Nos. 122 & 123 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P (PD) No. 122 & 123 of 2018
1.C.Chandiraprakash
2.C.Dhakshinamoorthy
3.S.Mani
4.R.Manickam
5.K.S.Sivamalai
6.R.A.Jaganathan
7.B.Pathamachand Jain ... Petitioners in both CRPs
Vs.
1.Sumathi
2.Sathyavathi
3.Karthikeyan
4.Alli
5.Banumathi
6.Balasubramaniam ... Respondents in both CRPs
Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to set aside the order and decree dated 05.12.2017
made in I.A.Nos.972 & 1069 of 2017 in O.S.No.665 of 2007 on the file of
the Principal District Munsif, Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran
For R1 & R2 : Mr.C.Jagadesh
For R3 to R6 : Notice served
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(P.D). Nos. 122 & 123 of 2018
ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the fair and
decreetal order dated 05.12.2017 made in I.A.Nos.972 & 1069 of 2017 in
O.S.No.665 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem,
thereby allowing the petition to permit the respondents to produce certain
documents as documentary evidence.
2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the
defendants. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration declaring that the
sale deed dated 15.05.2002 as null and void and permanent injunction in
respect of the suit property. After closing the evidence of both sides, the
respondents filed a petition seeking permission to receive additional
documents. Both the petitions were allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the
present Civil Revision Petitions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that after
closing the plaintiffs side evidence the petitioners filed a petition to re-open
and re-call of P.W.1. Both the petitions were dismissed. Aggrieved by the
same the petitioners preferred CRP (PD) Nos.4034 & 4035 of 2016 before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(P.D). Nos. 122 & 123 of 2018
this Court and the same were dismissed by an order dated 07.06.2017 and
directed the Trial Court to consider the issue whether the Court can
Suo-motu directed the respondents 1 and 2 to let in evidence as per the
Order XVI Rule 14 of CPC on merits within three weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of the order, after giving an opportunity to the petitioners.
Further directed that if the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the
evidence in the suit has to be re-opened, give an opportunity to the
respondents 1 and 2 to let in evidence and the evidence already taken on
behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 shall be eschewed.
4. Accordingly, the Trial Court re-opened the evidence of
respondents 1 and 2 herein. At that juncture, the respondents 1 and 2 filed a
petition seeking permission to receive the additional documents, which were
not pleaded by them in the written statement. The documents which were
sought to be produced before the Trial Court were not even whispered in the
written statement filed by the respondents 1 and 2. It is completely against
the provision of Order 8 Rule 1(A) of CPC. If the respondents 1 and 2 are
allowed to produce those documents, it would cause prejudice to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(P.D). Nos. 122 & 123 of 2018
petitioners, since they were denied the opportunity of filing the reply
statement for the newly introduced documents. Therefore, the Trial Court
ought not to have allowed the petitions with a permission to produce the
documents. It is contrary to the settled legal position mandated under Order
8 Rule 1(A) of CPC. The sudden introduction of documents which were
never mentioned in the pleadings are not preferred to produce before the
Court below. In fact, the respondents 1 and 2 were already granted
opportunity to re-open their evidence and even then they did not file any
application to produce those documents. After a period of ten years, they
have come forward with the present application and introduced new
documents, that too, without any pleading in their written statement.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would
submit that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration, declaring that the sale
deed dated 15.05.2002 registered vide document No.1095 of 2002 as null
and void and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The said
sale deed was registered in pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.51 of
2002. Therefore, the documents which were sought to be marked for relief
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(P.D). Nos. 122 & 123 of 2018
to the suit in O.S.No.51 of 2002, the petitioners continuously did not
produce those documents which are connected to O.S.No.51 of 2002 and as
such, the Court below has rightly permitted the respondents 1 and 2 to
produce those documents. He further submitted that the Order 8 Rule 1(A)
does not refer the pleadings upon the documents or relies upon any
documents in his possession. Further, the pleadings contain details about the
documents which are sought to be produced after filing the written
statement. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 rightly filed a petition under
Order 8 Rule 1(A) since the documents which are to be produced before the
Court as evidence under the said Rule with a lieu of the Court, it shall not
be received in evidence. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 sought
permission of the Court below to receive the documents for letting in
evidence. Further those documents can be marked subject to its proof
relevancy and admissibility. All those facts shall be considered only
during the trial and arguments of the suit. Therefore he prayed for dismissal
of the suit.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(P.D). Nos. 122 & 123 of 2018
learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.
7. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration and injunction in
respect of the suit property. After closing the evidence, the petitioners filed
a petition to re-open and re-call of P.W.1 and those petitions were dismissed.
Thereafter, the petitioners preferred Civil Revision Petitions in CRP (PD)
Nos.4034 & 4035 of 2016. While dismissing the Civil Revision Petitions
by an order dated 07.06.2017, this Court has observed as follows :-
“17. The learned Judge is directed to consider the
issue whether the Court can suo-motu direct the respondents 1
and 2 to let in evidence as per the Order XVI Rule 14 C.P.C on
merits and pass orders within 3 weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order, after giving an opportunity to the
petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 to put forth their case and
after considering the issue, if the learned Judge comes to the
conclusion that the evidence in the suit has to be reopened,
give an opportunity to the respondents 1 and 2 to let in
evidence and the evidence already taken on behalf of the
respondents 1 and 2 shall be eschewed.”
Accordingly, the Court below re-opened the evidence of the defendants. At
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(P.D). Nos. 122 & 123 of 2018
that juncture, the respondents 1 and 2 filed a petition seeking permission to
produce certain documents.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contented
that it is impermissible in law that without completing in their evidence
upon the documents, they are not permitted to produce any of the
documents on their behalf.
9. A perusal of the written statement filed by the respondents 1
and 2 showed that there is no whisper about the said documents.
10. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
defendants, where the defendants base his evidence upon the documents i.e.
that the pleadings upon the documents, the pleadings should be aware about
the documents which are sought to be produced along with the written
statement or letter. Without any pleadings about those documents, the
defendants cannot be permitted to introduce new documents other than the
written statement. That apart, the suit is of the year 2007 and after a period
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(P.D). Nos. 122 & 123 of 2018
of ten years, the respondents 1 and 2 sought for permission to produce those
documents.
11. A perusal of those documents reveals that they are connected
to O.S.No. 51 of 2002. The petitioners already produced the judgment
passed in O.S.No.51 of 2002 dated 11.11.2003 on the file of the Fast Track
Judge No.II, Salem. Though, the maintainability and admissibility of those
documents need not be decided as marking those documents is contrary to
the settled legal position mandated under Order 8 Rule 1(A) of CPC i.e., the
defendants in the suit who suddenly introduce strange documents which
were never mentioned in their pleadings are contrary to the said legal
position. It would also cause prejudice to the petitioners and as such the
Trial Court ought not to have allowed the respondents 1 and 2 due to
produce those documents which were not pleaded in the written statement.
12. In view of the above, the order passed in I.A.Nos.972 &
1069 of 2017 in O.S.No.665 of 2007, dated 05.12.2017 on the file of the
Principal District Munsif, Salem, is hereby set aside and the Civil Revision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(P.D). Nos. 122 & 123 of 2018
Petition is allowed. No costs.
08.04.2021
lpp
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
To
The Principal District Munsif,
Salem.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(P.D). Nos. 122 & 123 of 2018
lpp
C.R.P.(PD) No122 & 123 of 2018
08.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
