By order dated 20.11.2014 passed in S.R.No.6227 of 2014 in unregistered O.S.No.Nil of 2014, the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal, directed the plaintiff therein to file the original cheque dated 22.09.2014 issued in his favour by the second defendant along with an authenticated copy of the agreement dated 22.07.2014 for further scrutiny, failing which the plaint stood rejected. Aggrieved, the plaintiff is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

As the order under revision was passed by the trial Court even before registration of the suit, this Court does not deem it necessary to put the respondents/defendants on notice in this case.

The subject suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.22,13,000/- from the defendants with interest and costs. His claim was based on an alleged agreement of sale dated 08.12.2012, whereunder he claimed to have paid them advances, and the cheque dated 22.09.2014, allegedly issued by the second defendant towards part-refund. The office appears to have raised an objection requiring the plaintiff to file the original cheque. Arguments were advanced thereon before the trial Court leading to the order under revision.

It is not in dispute that the plaintiff filed photocopies of the subject cheque and agreement dated 22.07.2014 along with the plaint. The trial Court however observed that it would have been more appropriate for the plaintiff to indicate the whereabouts of the originals of these documents in the plaint and explain his difficulty in producing them. The trial Court concluded that return of the plaint in these circumstances could not be taken to be rejection thereof and that the objection raised by the office could not be deemed improper. The trial Court therefore held that the plaintiff should produce the original cheque dated 22.09.2014 and an authenticated copy of the agreement dated 22.07.2014, failing which the plaint was liable to be rejected.

It is clear from the order under revision that the trial Court did not treat the case on hand as one relating to rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The trial Court was however of the opinion that failure to comply with the office objection would still entail rejection of the plaint. The lapse of the plaintiff, according to the trial Court, was that he failed to file certain documents along with the plaint and he did not explain as to where their originals were. Reliance was placed by the trial Court on Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders 1980 (for brevity, ‘the Civil Rules of Practice’). However, the Civil Rules of Practice would always be subject to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is in this regard that Order 7 Rule 14 CPC and Order 13 Rule 1 CPC, which were not considered by the trial Court, would gain relevance. Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, to the extent relevant, reads as under:

“14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies:--

(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon 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.

(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.

(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.

…….”

Thus, under Order 7 Rule 14(1) CPC, the plaintiff is only required to produce the originals of the documents which are in his possession or power at the time of presentation of the plaint. Order 7 Rule 14(2) CPC makes it clear t