Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 951 (GAU)

State of Assam v. Hebilla N. Sangma

2017-07-19

PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA

body2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Prasanta Kumar Deka, J. Heard Mr. G Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the respondents. This matter is taken up for disposal as both the learned counsels gave their consent for its disposal. 2. In this revision petition, order dated 26.09.2016 is impugned which was passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Title Suit No. 339/2016. The present respondents, as the plaintiffs, preferred Title Suit No. 339/2016 against the present petitioners/defendants for declaration of payment/realisation of money and for permanent injunction. The plaintiffs/respondents took steps on the defendants/petitioners and the present petitioners/defendants entered appearance on 26.09.2016. On the said date, an application was filed by the said petitioners/defendants praying for time to file written statement along with a prayer for a direction to the plaintiffs/respondents to furnish copies of the documents relied by them. The learned court below on perusal of the case records and hearing the parties refused to direct the plaintiffs/respondents to supply the documents relied by them to the present petitioners/defendants. However, time for filing written statement was granted. Being aggrieved by the said order, more specifically, with respect to non-exercise of the jurisdiction by the learned court below for giving a direction to the plaintiffs/respondents to supply the copies of the documents so relied, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Mr. Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants, submits that there is no bar in giving a direction to the plaintiffs/respondents to supply the copies of documents relied by them along with the plaint. It is further submitted that the learned court below was under a misconception that if in the plaint documents are being annexed to the plaint that forms part of the plaint and the said documents filed separately, along with a list of documents then, the defendants are not entitled for copies of the documents relied by the plaintiffs/respondents as the same does not form part of the plaint. Accordingly, Mr. Rahul submits that the learned court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction within the ambit and scope of Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. So, he prays for setting aside the said order directing the court to pass an order in terms of the ambit and scope of the Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Mr. So, he prays for setting aside the said order directing the court to pass an order in terms of the ambit and scope of the Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the respondents, fairly submits that there was no objection raised by the plaintiff side before the learned court below but even under such circumstances, the learned court below has passed the said order. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs/respondents are ready, even today to supply the copy of the documents so relied in the plaint by the plaintiffs in the said Title Suit No. 339/2016. 5. Considered the submissions of the learned counsels. Perused the impugned order. Under Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), Rule 1 defines pleading which covers plaint or written statement in a suit. Under Order 6, Rule 9 of the CPC it has specifically stipulated that wherever the contents of any document are material, it shall be sufficient in any pleading to state the effect thereof as briefly as possible, without setting out the whole or any part thereof, unless the precise words of the document or any part thereof are material. From the said provision it is very much apparent as to what extent the document relied by the plaintiff has its importance in the case pleaded by him. Equally, the said documents relied by the plaintiffs are very much necessary to take the defence by the defendants in the written statement. Under Order 7, Rule 14 of the CPC it has been stipulated that where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon a document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. The said provision of Order 7, Rule 14 itself gives a direction to the plaintiff to submit copy of the documents along with the plaint at the time of filing in the court. The said documents are relevant and as such a direction has been given under Order 7, Rule 14 to the plaintiff to submit the copy of the documents relied by him to the court. 6. The said documents are relevant and as such a direction has been given under Order 7, Rule 14 to the plaintiff to submit the copy of the documents relied by him to the court. 6. On receipt of the said copy of the plaint along with the documents, the title suit is registered and the concerned court passes an order directing the plaintiff to take steps on the defendants along with the copy of the plaint. The said word 'plaint' includes the documents relied by the plaintiff, inasmuch as, had that been not the intent, Order 7, Rule 14 would not have specified that the plaint must be accompanied by the copy of the documents relied by the plaintiff. Further while invoking jurisdiction under Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC for rejection of a plaint, the documents relied by the plaintiff are also to be taken into consideration by the court along with the averments made in the plaint. The view of the learned court below that the documents are to be supplied to the defendants by the plaintiff in a situation, if the documents are annexed with the plaint only, this is totally an incorrect view as it would cause serious prejudice to the defendants. However, if any contents of a document, though pleaded by either of the parties to the suit in their pleadings, but could not file a copy of the same, he/she being not the custodian, the other party cannot insist for a copy of the said document. 7. The manner in which a direction has been given under Order 7, Rule 14 of the CPC to the plaintiff to supply the copy of the document along with the plaint to the court, similar would be understanding on the part of the court below so far the "written statement" is concerned. Similar provisions are also stipulated under Order 8, Rule 1A of the CPC which also provides that the defendant is bound to file his written statement along with the copy of the documents relied in the written statement. Accordingly, had the documents relied upon by either of the parties to a suit no role to play at all, such direction that too, in the mandatory form, would not have been stipulated in the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, had the documents relied upon by either of the parties to a suit no role to play at all, such direction that too, in the mandatory form, would not have been stipulated in the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the word 'plaint' and/or 'written statement' shall cover under its fold, the documents relied upon by the parties and submitted to the court in terms of Order 7, Rule 14 and Order 8, Rule 1(A) of the CPC while filing plaint and/or written statement. Either of the parties to a suit are entitled to the copy/copies of such documents relied by them in their "pleadings" irrespective of the same are annexed to the pleadings or not but submitted in the court. 8. Considering the same, the order passed by the learned court below cannot be accepted so far supply of documents by the plaintiffs to the defendants is concerned. This petition is accordingly allowed with a direction to the learned court below to direct the plaintiffs/respondents to supply the copy of the documents relied upon by them in the plaint to the defendants/petitioners. The parties to the suit will appear before the court on 28.07.2017 and on production of the certified copy of this order, necessary direction be recorded as per the observation made in this petition. 9. Accordingly, this revision petition stands disposed of. 10. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.