Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1606 (MAD)

M. Appusmay v. M. K. Sabhapathe

2010-04-06

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 22.1.2010, made in I.A.No.39 of 2010, in O.S.No.319 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Erode. 2. The respondents had filed the suit, in O.S.No.319 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Erode, praying for a decree directing the defendants to pay the plaintiffs, jointly and severally, the sum of Rs.3,60,400/-, with subsequent interest at 12% per annum, from the date of the suit, till the date of realisation of the said sum. 3. The petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition, who is the second defendant in the said suit, had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.39 of 2010, praying that the applicant may be permitted to mark a receipt as a document in his favour. 4. The trial Court, by its order, dated 22.1.2010, had dismissed the interlocutory application stating that the existence of the said receipt had not been mentioned in the written statement and in the affidavit filed by the petitioner. The trial Court had also noted that the date of the receipt had not been stated and there is nothing to show the purpose for which the receipt had been issued. The trial Court had also stated that the receipt was clearly of a recent origin and that, if any interest had been paid, an endorsement would have been made on the back side of the promissory note. In the absence of such an endorsement, the receipt sought to be marked by the petitioner was not to be accepted. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated that the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner to mark a receipt as an exhibit in his favour, would amount to denial of fair trial and justice. 6. He had also submitted that the trial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by rendering such a finding, while passing the impugned order, dated 22.1.2010, in the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.39 of 2010. Since, the said document, which was the stamped receipt for the payment of interest, ought to have been accepted as a form of evidence in support of the specific defence set out in paragraph 5 of the written statement. Since, the said document, which was the stamped receipt for the payment of interest, ought to have been accepted as a form of evidence in support of the specific defence set out in paragraph 5 of the written statement. The order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that the reasoning and the conclusion are beyond the pleadings and on consideration of irrelevant factors. The trial Court ought to have seen that the document in question is a material piece of evidence in the suit for recovery of money. As such, the dismissal of the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner had caused great prejudice to the petitioner. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the statements made by the petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application, are false. The alleged receipt sought to be filed by the petitioner is a fabricated document. The amounts stated in the receipt and the signature thereon are also incorrect and false. The statement made by the petitioner that he could not find the receipt, immediately after the filing of the suit, is also false. The interlocutory application had been filed by the petitioner only with the mala fide intention of dragging on the proceedings in the suit and with the intention of harassing the respondents. 8. It has also been stated that an ex-parte decree had been passed, on 16.4.2008, in the suit, in O.S.No.319 of 2007, due to the failure of the petitioner in filing the written statement. Thereafter, an Execution Petition in E.P.No.197 of 2008, had also been filed. However, the ex- parte decree had been set aside based on the application filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the trial in the suit, in O.S.No.319 of 2007, had commenced. On 25.8.2009, the plaintiffs evidence was over and the suit had been posted for the defendants evidence. Since, no evidence had been adduced on behalf of the defendants, the plaintiffs arguments were over, on 17.12.2009. While so, the petitioner had filed the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.39 of 2010, on 11.1.2010, to file the additional document. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had also stated that no interest had been paid for the amount said to be due, in accordance with the suit promissory note. While so, the petitioner had filed the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.39 of 2010, on 11.1.2010, to file the additional document. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had also stated that no interest had been paid for the amount said to be due, in accordance with the suit promissory note. The receipt sought to be filed by the petitioner, as an additional document, would have no bearing on the outcome of the suit, as it is not based on the pleadings in the said suit. 10. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Civil Revision Petition. 11. The petitioner has not been in a position to substantiate his claim that the receipt sought to be filed, as an additional document, in the suit, in O.S.No.319 of 2007, could not be found by him, immediately after the filing of the said suit. No proper explanation has been given by the petitioner for the undue delay in filing the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.39 of 2010, for marking the alleged receipt, as a document in the suit. Further, the trial Court had found that the alleged receipt had not been mentioned in his pleadings filed in the suit, including the written statement filed by the petitioner. 12. It is also noted that the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner, in I.A.No.39 of 2010, is belated in nature. The said application has been filed by the petitioner only, on 11.1.2010, after the plaintiffs arguments were over, on 17.12.2009. In such circumstances, it is clear that the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed.