Madras High Court
Institute For Financial ... vs S.Ratnakar on 1 July, 2021
CRP.PD.No.845 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.PD.No.845 of 2018 and
CMP.No.4676 of 2018
Institute for Financial Management
and Research(IFMR),
Rep. by its Registrar,
No.30, Kothari Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600 034 ..Petitioner
Vs.
S.Ratnakar ..Respondent
PRAYER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order dated
11.01.2018 passed in IA.No.16469 of 2017 in OS.No.5965 of 2013
passed by the learned VI Assistant Judge of City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.Mahesh Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Rajendran
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and
decretal order dated 11.01.2018 passed in IA.No.16469 of 2017 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.845 of 2018
OS.No.5965 of 2013 on the file of the learned VI Assistant Judge of
City Civil Court, Chennai, thereby allowing the petition to receive the
documents.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the
defendant. The petitioner filed suit for recovery of money. While
pending suit, the respondent filed petition to produce certain
documents. The said application was dismissed and aggrieved by the
same, the respondent preferred civil revision petition before this Court
and this Court by order dated 27.09.2017 in CRP.No.1290 of 2015, the
petitioner therein was given liberty to make a comprehensive
application along with a list of documents so as to enable the
petitioner herein to produce it or to express inability. Therefore, again
the respondent filed petition to produce certain documents and the
same was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent filed petition seeking
to receive the following documents:
S. Date Description of document Remarks
No
1 26.03.2008 Offer letter given by IMFR Trust to Ex.B1
the defendant
2 31.03.2008 Request for relieving by the Ex.B2
defendant to plaintiff
3 22.10.2010 Representation / appeal letter by the Ex.B3
defendant to plaintff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.845 of 2018
4 26.10.2010 Plaintiff Institute president's approval Ex.B4
in the lodgment schedule for PF and
Gratuity
5 30.08.2011 Payment Voucher issued by the Ex.B5
Plaintiff to defendant
6 31.08.2012 Relieving letter from the plaintiff Ex.B6
institution to the defendant
7 31.08.2012
Conduct and service letter from Ex.B7
plaintiff to defendant
The same was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil
revision petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when
the respondent was denied on two occasions to produce certain
documents through the petitioner and both the applications were
dismissed by the trial court, again the respondent come forward with
the petition to receive those documents which are sought to be
produced by the petitioner. When the respondent filed petition under
Order VIII Rule 1(A)(iii), the respondent ought to have stated the
reason why those documents were not produced along with the written
statement and also to satisfy the court below to receive those
documents. Without doing so, the court below mechanically allowed
the petition. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment in the case of
Shri Harkesh Singh & another Vs. Shri Ved Raj rendered in
CM(M) No.945 of 2007 dated 02.02.2010, wherein it is held as
follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.845 of 2018
3. Order 7 Rule 14 CPC is in respect of production
of documents by the plaintiff along with the plaint. Order
8 Rule 1A requires defendant to produce all documents
along with the WS. Order 8 Rule 1A (3) provides that the
documents which have not been produced along with the
WS cannot be produced in the Court, later on, without the
leave of the Court. Order 13 deals with production,
impounding and return of documents and provides that
the parties to produce all documentary evidence in
original before settlement of issues. Order 13 Rule 1(3)
CPC makes exception only in respect of those documents
which are to be handed over to witnesses for refreshing
his memory or to which witness, may be confronted
during cross examination. Thus, if any documents are to
be produced by a party, the same are to be produced with
pleadings. Subsequent production of documents can be
done only if the Court is satisfied with the grounds
explained for non production of documents.
4. In the present case, the petitioners had not filed
the documents along with the WS neither filed a list of
documents stating that the documents were relied upon
by them but were not in their possession. The only
ground stated by the petitioners is that due to
inadvertence they did not file the documents.
Inadvertence is no ground for allowing an application for
production of documents at the stage of evidence. I find
no force in the petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.845 of 2018
4. He also relied upon the judgment in the case of Dewanti
Devi and others Vs. Radheshyam Tiwary and others reported in
2019 SCC Online pat 28, wherein it is held as follows:
6. Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the CPC provides that the
documents, which have not been produced along with the
written statement, cannot be produced to the court later
on without the leave of the court. Thus, if a document is
to be produced by a defendant, the same is to be
produced with the written statement. Subsequent
production of document can be done only if the court is
satisfied with the grounds explained for non-production of
the documents at the time of filing of the written
statement.
7. In the instant case, from the application filed by
the petitioners before the court below it does not appear
as to why the proposed documents, which the petitioners
intend to be taken into evidence, were not produced
earlier. Similar applications filed by other defendants
were dismissed by the court below on 27.08.2012 and
09.10.2014. The repeated applications being filed by the
separate sets of defendants for admitting common
documents one after another is nothing but a ploy to
delay the disposal of the suit.
The High Court of New Delhi held that if the documents are sought to
be produced by a party, the same are to be produced with pleadings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.845 of 2018
Subsequent production of the documents can be done only if the court
is satisfied with the grounds explained for non production of
documents.
5. In the case on hand, the respondent filed written
statement and he reserved his right to file documents at the time of
trial. Though, the respondent was denied seeking production of certain
documents from the plaintiff, petition was filed under Order VIII Rule
1(A)(iii) to receive the above said documents to defend the suit. On
perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, revealed that
the petitioner filed suit for recovery of money towards damages for
unlawful misappropriation of fund. The respondent to disprove the
claim of the petitioner herein that he has not involved in any
misappropriation of funds and the amount granted by the petitioner is
only through proper process and procedure adopted by the petitioner
institution and also the documents which are sought to be produced
supported the claim of the respondent. Therefore, the court below
rightly allowed the petition to receive those documents. In fact, the
learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the trial has
been completed and the suit is posted for arguments and the
petitioner was given several opportunity to cross examine DW1 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.845 of 2018
even then, the petitioner failed to cross examine defence witnesses
and the suit is posted for arguments.
6. Therefore, the respondent categorically stated the reasons
and the court below was satisfied with the reasons stated by the
respondent and allowed the same. As such, the judgments cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioner are not helpful to the case on hand
and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the
court below.
7. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed.
However, the petitioner is permitted to cross examine defence
witnesses in the manner known to law by filing appropriate application.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as
to costs.
01.07.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.845 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lok
To
The VI Assistant Judge of
City Civil Court, Chennai.
CRP.PD.No.845 of 2018
01.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
