Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 3855 (MAD)

Kamala Kannan & Others v. M. Manikandan

2008-10-23

M.VENUGOPAL

body2008
Judgment :- This civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioners/ defendants as against the order passed in I.A.No.14335 of 2008 in O.S.No.7479 of 1994 dated 28. 2008 by the learned XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in allowing the application filed under Order 8 Rule1A(3) of CPC by the respondent/plaintiff to file additional documents. The trial Court has obsered that " the documents have been issued by the Government authorities and to provide opportunity to both parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceeding and to decide the case on merits", I.A.No.14335 of 2008 has been allowed. 2. In the trial Court, the respondent/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.14335 of 2008 inter alia stating that the Corporation Property Tax Book dated 11. 1996, the Property Tax Payment receipts dated 12. 1998 and the Water and Sewerage Tax cum Water Charges Card were not available at the time of filing of the suit and they have been obtained by him subsequently after 1996 and these documents are necessary for arriving at a just decision of the case and therefore, has prayed for permission from the Court to file the same. 3. The revision petitioners/defendants before the trial Court have filed a common counter affidavit mentioning among other things that the respondent/plaintiff has already filed an application to consider the evidence given by P.W.2 and that even though the case has been filed during 1996, the proof affidavit of respondent/plaintiff has been projected only on 27. 2008 and in the said proof affidavit, there is no whisper about the documents which he relies upon to be filed before the Court and the respondent has not given satisfactory reason for non production of the documents at the time of filing of the suit and therefore, the same cannot be entertained, since the evidence on both sides have been closed. 4. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/defendants urges before this Court that the order of the Trial Court in allowing I.A.No.14335 of 2008 in O.S.No.7479 of 1994 is not correct in the eye of law for the simple reason that the respondent/plaintiff has not given any satisfactory explanation about the alleged documents to be filed and that the trial Court has not taken into account of the fact that the suit has been filed only for recovery of possession and not for declaration of title and therefore, the said documents have no nexus for arriving at a decision in the main suit and further that the application has been projected after evidence on both sides were closed and hence prays for allowing the revision petition. 5. This Court has noticed the respective contentions of the learned counsel appearing on either side and has given its anxious consideration thereto. 6. It is to be pointed out that while Order 7 Rule 14 CPC and Rule 18 CPC debar the plaintiffs from producing in evidence documents in their possession or power and not included in the list, there is no corresponding the provision to prevent the defendant the right to produce the documents at any time before the evidence is closed. A perusal of the order 7 Rule 14 CPC clearly indicates that the petitioner/plaintiff when he relies on the documents and that documents can still be produced by him at a later stage with the leave of the Court under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC and in fact the omission of Order 18 Rule 17A CPC will have no effect in the eye of law. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent relies on a decision of this Court reported in Central Bank of India, Branch at Krishnagiri, rep by its Branch Manager, Krishnagiri -vs-M/s Rama Granites, rep by its Sole Proprietor, K. Ramamurthy ( 2006(1) CTC 610 ) wherein this Court has inter alia observed that Even though Rule 17-A was deleted by the Amendment Act of 2002, if party satisfies the Court that the evidence sought for to be produced was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time when he let in evidence, the Court has inherent power to permit such evidence to be let in at a later stage also.. 8. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent also further cites the decision reported in S. Rathinaswamy-v-S. Bhanumathi ( 2006(2) CTC 491 ) whereby it is observed that Court is empowered to recall witness who has been examined in chief cross examination at any stage, powers are wide and witness can be recalled for purpose of clarification of any ambiguity or omission noticed and can be exercised suo moto or at instance of parties to suit. But such power should be used with care and limited circumstances in view of deletion of Order 18 Rule 17-A, by amended Code of 2002. Such power is purely discretionary and to be used sparingly and facts and circumstances warranted recalling witness. Yet another decision in M/s V.S. Govinda Achari Trust rep by its Managing Trustee-v-Nagaratnammal @ Pattammal ( 2002(2) CTC 38 ) has been relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff to the effect that interest of justice requires that plaintiff is entitled to seek reopening of evidence and mark documents relating to competence of Managing Trustee to maintain suit on behalf of trust etc.,. 9. On a careful consideration of the respective contentions and on the basis of the settled legal principles, this Court is of the considered view that with the leave of the Court under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC, a party can produce documents at a later stage and the omission of Order 18 Rule 17A of CPC will have no effect, notwithstanding the fact that in the instant case, the respondent/plaintiff has not assigned any satisfactory explanation in regard to the non filing of the document at the earliest point of time. The trial Court has exercised its discretion and allowing the application for reception of documents to avoid plurality and multiplicity of proceedings between the parties. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to allow the above revision petition and resultantly the revision fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 10. In fine, the civil revision petition is dismissed and the order passed in I.A.No.14335 of 2008 in O.S.No.7479 of 1994 on the file of XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is hereby confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed. 10. In fine, the civil revision petition is dismissed and the order passed in I.A.No.14335 of 2008 in O.S.No.7479 of 1994 on the file of XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is hereby confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed. I It is made clear that the documents relied on by the respondent/plaintiff in I.A.No.14335 of 2008 in O.S.No.7479 of 1994 are allowed to be marked by the trial Court subject to proof and relevancy and in the manner known to law. The trial Court shall provide due opportunity to the revision petitioners/defendants to cross examine the respondents/plaintiffs witness while marking the said documents. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that in O.S.No.7479 of 1994 is pending on the file of XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the Honourable High Court has fixed time frame for disposal of the main case and taking note of the same, this Court directs the respondent/plaintiff not to drag on the proceedings unnecessarily and to conduct the proceedings diligently and the trial Court is also directed to bearing in mind, the time frame set by the High Court and act accordingly by avoiding unnecessary adjournments in the case so that the main case can be disposed of conclusively and completely thrashing out all the controversies in the dispute.