JUDGMENT : S. Manikumar, J. Being aggrieved by the docket order, dated 22-8-2012 made in I. A. No. 5 of 2012 in 0. S. No. 117 of 2010, on the memo, for return of documents, filed by defendants 2 and 3, in the above suit, filed for a direction to the defendants to execute a sale-deed, in favour of the plaintiff firm, after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.24,04,500/- or in the alternative, the Court below to execute the sale-deed, in favour of the plaintiff firm, after depositing the balance sale consideration, into the Court's account, the present civil revision petition has been filed. Before the Court below, the plaintiff has also sought for an interim injunction, restraining the defendants from alienating and trespassing into the suit properties. 2. After contest, the learned District Judge, Kancheepuram, has dismissed the suit, vide judgment and decree, dated 23rd December, 2010. Thereafter, the defendants 2 and 3/revision petitioners have filed a memo, for return of documents, Exs. B 1 to B 14. Notice has been ordered to the plaintiffs counsel. Objecting to the request for return of documents, the plaintiff has filed a memo, stating that an appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 117 of 2010, dated 23-12-2010. The learned Additional District Judge, No. II, Kancheepuram, by recording that an appeal has been filed, the original documents will have to be sent to the High Court and on that ground, refused to return the documents. 3. Assailing the docket order, Mr. S. Concious Ilango, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 submitted that the trial Court ought to have permitted the petitioners to replace Exs. B 1 to B 14, with certified copies, whenever required and that when a specific undertaking was given in the memo, to make the documents, available at the appellate stage, the Court below, ought to have returned the original documents, Exs. B 1 to B 14 to the defendants 2 and 3, by replacing them with certified copies, whenever required. He also submitted that except the memo, stating that an appeal has been filed, no document, such as, grounds of appeal, affidavit and petition, filed in the High Court, were produced by the plaintiff to prove that an appeal has been preferred before this Court. He also submitted that except the memo, stating that an appeal has been filed, no document, such as, grounds of appeal, affidavit and petition, filed in the High Court, were produced by the plaintiff to prove that an appeal has been preferred before this Court. Hence, he submitted that the Court has failed to apply its mind to the above said facts and mechanically dismissed the application. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4. Order 13, Rule 9 deals with the re turn of admitted documents and that the same is extracted hereunder: "(1) Any person, whether a party to the suit or not, desirous of receiving back any document produced by him in the suit and placed on the record shall, unless the document is impounded under Rule 8, be entitled to receive back the same, (a) where the suit is one in which an appeal is not allowed, when the suit has been disposed of, and (b) where the suit is one in which an appeal is allowed, when the Court is satisfied that the time for preferring an appeal has been elapsed and that no appeal has been preferred or, if an appeal has been preferred, when the appeal has been disposed of: Provided that a document may be returned at any time earlier than that prescribed by this rule if the person applying therefor. (a) delivers to the proper officer for being substituted for the original, (i) in the case of a party to the suit, a certificated copy, and (ii) in the case of any other person, an ordinary copy which has been examined, compared and certified in the manner mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 Order 7, and (b) undertakes to produce the original, if required to do so: Provided also that no document shall be returned which, by force of the decree has become wholly void or useless. (2) On the return of a document admitted in evidence, a receipt shall be given by the person receiving it." 5. Order 13, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code has been amended. For Madras and Pondicherry, the following sub-rules (3) and (4) have been inserted by Dis. No. 1994 of 2005, G. O. 2920, Law General, dated 22-9-1925 and Fort St. George Gazette, dated 20-10-1925, Pt. Order 13, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code has been amended. For Madras and Pondicherry, the following sub-rules (3) and (4) have been inserted by Dis. No. 1994 of 2005, G. O. 2920, Law General, dated 22-9-1925 and Fort St. George Gazette, dated 20-10-1925, Pt. III, P. 1368, as follows : "(3) Every application for return of a document under the first proviso to sub-rule (1) shall be made by a verified petition and shall set forth facts justifying the immediate return of the original and Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the costs of any or all the parties to the application, including any costs, incidental to the preparation of the certified copy to be substituted for the original and may further direct that any party against whom any order for costs is made shall have such costs, if paid, included as costs in the cause. (4) Subject to the provisions of Rule 8 above, where a document is produced by a person who is not a party to the suit and such person applies for the return of the document as hereinbefore provided and undertakes to produce it whenever required to do so, the Court shall except for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, require the party on whose behalf the document was produced, to substitute with the least possible delay a certified copy of the original, and shall thereupon cause the original document to be returned to the applicant and may further make such order as to costs and charges in this behalf as it thinks fit. If the copy is not so provided within the time fixed by the Court the original document shall be returned to the applicant without further delay." 6. As per Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 9 Order 13, of Code of Civil Procedure, every application for return of a document under the first proviso to sub-rule (1) shall be made by a certified petition and shall set forth the facts, justifying the immediate return of the original. As per Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 9 Order 13, of Code of Civil Procedure, every application for return of a document under the first proviso to sub-rule (1) shall be made by a certified petition and shall set forth the facts, justifying the immediate return of the original. No doubt, any person, whether a party to the suit or not, desirous of receiving back any document produced by him in the suit and placed on the record shall, unless, the document is impounded under Rule 8, be entitled to receive back the same, subject to the conditions, set out in Sub-Rule (1) and proviso to the same, reading of Sub-Rule (3), indicates that the facts, justifying the return of the originals, should be set forth in an application to be filed under Order 13, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code. 7. While considering the provisions, stated supra, this Court is of the view that mere filing of a Memorandum for return of documents, is not sufficient and that the Prayer for return of documents, should be in the form of verified petition and that the same should be set forth the facts for immediate return of the originals. Though the revision petitioners have inter alia contended that they would replace the documents with the certified copies, whenever required, the Memorandum filed before the Court below, does not disclose the facts, justifying the return. The said memorandum is extracted here under: Memo for return of document by 2nd and 3rd defendants. Suit No. O. S. No. 117/2010 Plaintiff M/s. Buvaneswari Housing and Land Developers, Chennai- 600116, Rep. by its Managing Partner, N. Gopalakrishnan Defendant A. P. Jayapandian and others Order or Decree 23-12-2010 Appeal Nil Filed by whom 2nd and 3rd Defendants Marks/document Details of Document Ex. B 1 2-4-1997 General Power of attorney deed executed by Murugesa Mudaliar in favour of durai Singh Ex. B2 6-5-1964 Certified copy of the sale-deed executed by P. D. Mohanarangam in favour of Andalammal Ex. B3 23-4-1998 General Power of Attorney Deed in favour of 1st Defendant Ex. B4 24-9-2001 Sale-deed executed by Durai Singh and another in favour of 1st defendant Ex. B6 28-1-2003 computerized patta in the name of the 1st defendant Ex. B7 26-7-2006 Kist Receipt Ex. B8 Encumbrance Certificate Ex. B9 22-11-2006 Sale-Deed in favour of the 2nd defendant executed by the 1st defendant Ex. B4 24-9-2001 Sale-deed executed by Durai Singh and another in favour of 1st defendant Ex. B6 28-1-2003 computerized patta in the name of the 1st defendant Ex. B7 26-7-2006 Kist Receipt Ex. B8 Encumbrance Certificate Ex. B9 22-11-2006 Sale-Deed in favour of the 2nd defendant executed by the 1st defendant Ex. B10 22-11-2006 Sale-Deed in favour of the 3rd defendant executed by the 1st defendant Ex. B11 21-5-2007 Patta in the name of 2nd defendant Ex. B12 21-5-2007 Patta in the name of the 3rd defendant Ex. B13 25-6-2007 Kist receipt Ex. B14 25-6-2007 Kist receipt 8. Except Exs. B 1 and B3 - General Power of Attorney and Exs. B4, B9 and B 10 - Sale- Deed, the other documents are certified copies. In Des Raj v. Raghunath Singh, reported in AIR 2004 J&K 64 , the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held that certified copies of the documents filed, cannot be returned. In Prem Lata Malhotra v. Shiv Nath Sharma, reported in AIR 1997 J&K 130 , the Court held that the witness wanting the document back should move an application in terms of Order 13, Rule 9 and that the Court can return the document, after taking copy in terms of Rule 9(b)(ii). The memorandum filed is not in proper form. Moreover, as per the provision, an application is required to be filed in proper form, setting forth the facts, justifying return of the documents. 9. Though the learned Additional District Judge, No. II, Kancheepuram, has not adverted to the requirements of Order 13, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, while considering the prayer for return of the documents, this Court, taking note of the same, is of the view that the revision petitioners have not made out a case for return of the documents. 10. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. Revision dismissed.