Madras High Court
Elumalai vs Alamelu Ammal on 30 October, 2024
CRP No.4120 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
CRP No.4120 of 2024
and CMP No.22593 of 2024
Elumalai .. Petitioner
-vs-
1. Alamelu Ammal
2. Kanchana
3. Nagu .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against
the order dated 24.11.2023 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.34 of
2017 on the file of District Munsif Court at Uthukottai.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajendra Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.Prabhu for RR 2 and 3
: No appearance for R-1
*****
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No.4120 of 2024
ORDER
This civil revision petition arises against the order passed by the
learned District Munsif at Uthukottai in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.34 of
2017.
2. O.S.No.34 of 2017 is a suit seeking for recovery of possession of
the suit schedule mentioned property. Written statement has been filed,
issues have been framed and the matter is now listed for trial. At the stage
of trial, the plaintiff, who is aged about 73 years, on account of the fact that
he is having serious health issues, authorised his son to testify on his behalf.
In addition, he took out an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the
Code of Civil Procedure to mark a medical certificate dated 14.07.2023
regarding his medical condition.
3. The learned Judge received this application in I.A.No.1 of 2023
and ordered notice to the respondents. The respondents also filed a counter.
Thereafter, the learned Judge took up the application for disposal and
dismissed the said application by an order dated 24.11.2023. Hence, this
revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. I have heard Mr.P.Rajendra Kumar for the civil revision petitioner
and Mr.Prabhu for the respondents.
5. Mr.Rajendra Kumar states that on account of the fact that the
plaintiff is facing health issues, he is not in a position to appear before the
Court, hence, he had authorised his son to depose on his behalf. In order to
substantiate the fact that he is suffering from medical condition, he wanted
to produce the medical certificate dated 14.07.2023. He pleads that the
dismissal of this petition is unfortunate and it requires to be revised.
6. Per contra, Mr.Prabhu argues that even taking the medical
certificate on its face value, it only states that the plaintiff is suffering from
"chronic diabetes" and "low blood pressure". These afflictions, according
to him, cannot prevent a party from appearing before the Court. He adds
that the certificate is irrelevant for the purpose of proving anything in the
suit. It only, at best, substantiates the health issues of the plaintiff and hence,
the order of the learned District Munsif requires confirmation.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure has a
corresponding provision under Order VIII Rule 1A(3). By the said
provision, the plaintiff is entitled to produce documents at a later stage with
the leave of the Court. This provision came in by way of an amendment
from 01.07.2002. Prior to such amendment, there was a provision under
Order XIII Rule 2, where a party was called upon to explain the delay in
filing documents, which had not been presented along with the plaint. The
Parliament, in its wisdom, decided to reduce the burden on parties and
instead of explaining the delay, all that a party requires to do is to seek
“leave of the Court to produce the documents”. Granting of leave does not
have the same strenuous effect to explain the delay in filing the documents.
When the Code has liberalised the procedure for production of documents
substituting the provision for delay with a provision for leave, taking cue
from the suggestion made by the Parliament, the Court should interpret the
provision in liberal manner.
9. As to what is a document is defined under the Indian Evidence Act.
It is not defined under the Code of Civil Procedure. Any document that is
produced by a party, whether it is relevant to the case or not, is to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
decided by the Court at the time at the time of disposal of the suit. For the
purpose of trial, the party might produce a document which the Court might
ultimately consider as irrelevant with respect to the claims made by the
plaintiff or the defendant. That by itself does not bar a party from
producing the documents. The Court does not provide any advisory opinion
to the parties as to which documents are relevant or which documents are
irrelevant at the time of their production during trial. Marshalling of
evidence and the documents is done, as pointed out above, only when the
Court finally pronounces the judgment in the suit.
10. Insofar as this case is concerned, the plaintiff has produced a
medical certificate to show that the plaintiff is suffering from health
conditions. Whether low blood pressure and chronic diabetes is a ground
for exemption is not for the Court to decide. The age of the plaintiff is
around 74. The afflictions mentioned in the medical report might not affect
a person who is of young age, but it has adverse impact on the person who
is advanced in age. Be that as it may, it is for the plaintiff to put forward
whatever evidence that he wants to bring before the Court. The plaintiff has
filed this document in order to obviate the plea that the defendants might
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
take at a later date that the plaintiff has avoided the witness box and thereby,
inviting the Court to draw an adverse inference against him. If the party
gives a valid explanation as to why he is not present in Court and that
explanation, if it is convincing to the Court, obviously adverse inference
will not be drawn. The affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2023 also
states that the plaintiff has authorised his son to depose on his behalf.
11. The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the plaintiff
wants to produce the certificate in order to prevent the defendant from
showing that he is avoiding the witness box. Hence, I feel that this
document becomes relevant for the purpose of the plaintiff authorising his
son to depose as P.W.1. Furthermore, in terms of Order 18 Rule 3A, which,
as held by a Division Bench of this Court, is only directory, the son of the
plaintiff can depose now and the plaintiff can always enter the witness box
at a later date.
12. All these are matters which are within the realm of the litigative
strategy that will have to be developed by the plaintiff. Suffice it to say, the
order of the learned Judge holding that the medical certificate is irrelevant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
requires interference. Accordingly, it is set aside. I.A.No.1 of 2023 will
stand allowed. P.W.1 will be entitled to mark the medical certificate dated
14.07.2023.
13. At this stage, Mr.Prabhu requests that the suit be disposed of at a
early date. He undertakes to complete the cross-examination of the parties
at the earliest without causing any delay on that score. Similar statement is
made on behalf of the plaintiff. Considering the submission of both the
counsels, the learned District Munsif at Uthukottai is requested to dispose
of the suit on or before 31.07.2025. He shall submit a report to this Court
after complying with the said order.
The civil revision petition is, accordingly, allowed. No costs.
Consequently, C.M.P.No.22593 of 2024 is closed.
30.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sra
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
(sra)
To
The District Munsif,
Uthukottai.
30.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
