Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 4253 (MAD)

Saraswathi v. Valliammal

2014-11-14

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2014
Judgment 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petition filed by the defendants under Order VIII Rule 1-A of CPC came to be partly allowed and partly dismissed by the trial court holding that out of 13 documents sought to be produced, the documents found listed in Sl.Nos.1 and 3 of the petition could not be received as they were inadmissible and in respect of the other documents, the prayer of the defendants was accepted by the trial court. As against that part of the order which has gone against the defendants, the defendants have come forward with the present revision petition invoking the power of superintendence of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The short point that arises for consideration in this revision is : "Whether the court can go into the question as to the genuineness or admissibility of the document when dealing with a petition filed under Order VIII Rule 1-A of CPC?" 4. The simple answer shall be, had the petitioners filed those documents along with the written statement, the trial court would not have got even an opportunity to consider the admissibility or genuineness of such documents and all those documents should have been received. The mere fact that the documents are received after condoning the delay in producing the documents will not amount to the admission of the documents in evidence. Suppose the court below has rejected the prayer in toto holding that the petitioners were not justified in not producing the documents along with the written statement and in coming forward to produce the said document at a belated stage, then the order of the trial court may not be found fault with. 5. On the other hand, the learned trial judge, while dealing with the application under Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC went beyond the scope of the petition by rendering a decision as to the admissibility or genuineness of some of the documents alone. Such an exercise is outside the scope of the enquiry under Order VIII Rule 1-A of CPC and the order passed by the learned trial judge can be viewed as a result of the lower court exceeding the jurisdiction. The said order cannot stand the scrutiny of this court. 6. Such an exercise is outside the scope of the enquiry under Order VIII Rule 1-A of CPC and the order passed by the learned trial judge can be viewed as a result of the lower court exceeding the jurisdiction. The said order cannot stand the scrutiny of this court. 6. For the said reasons, the revision is allowed and the order of the learned trial judge dated 17.04.2010 made in I.A.No.91/2010 in O.S.No.302 of 2007 is modified with the result that I.A.No.91/2010 shall stand allowed in toto. It is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of the respondents raising objection when the documents are sought to be marked in evidence. There shall be no order as to cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.