Back
2014 Supreme(Kar) 1014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
N. Kumar, J.
Rupen Patel – Appellant
Vs.
Gopalan Enterprises (India) Pvt. Ltd. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 11897 of 2012 (GM-CPC)
Decided On: 20.03.2014
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant : Saravana S. for D.R. Ravishankar for Lex Nexus
For Respondents: V. Ramesha Babu for Chalapathy and Srinivas
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Order 13, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the return of admitted documents.
Headnote:
Return of Admitted Documents - Original Sale Deed - The court dismissed the petition challenging the order seeking return of the original sale deed, citing Order 13, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides for the return of admitted documents. The provision allows a person to receive back a document in specific circumstances, including when the suit has been disposed of, when an appeal has been disposed of, or when a certified copy of the document is produced and the party undertakes to produce the original if required. The court found that in the instant case, a certified copy of the document sought to be taken back was not produced, and therefore, the petition was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application seeking return of the original sale deed, arguing that no reasons are required to be assigned for taking back the original document which is already marked in evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that although the trial Court did not assign proper reasons for dismissing the application, the impugned order cannot be interfered with as the certified copy of the document sought to be taken back was not produced. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of a party to receive back an original document marked in evidence, the requirements under Order 13, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the circumstances under which a document can be returned.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Order 13, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a person to receive back a document in specific circumstances, including when the suit has been disposed of, when an appeal has been disposed of, or when a certified copy of the document is produced and the party undertakes to produce the original if required.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court.
N. Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing I.A. No. 6 seeking return of Ex.P35, Original Sale Deed. The grievance of the petitioner is that the law does not require any reasons to be assigned by a party for taking back the original document which is already marked in evidence and therefore, the impugned order needs to be set-aside.
2. Order 13, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure that provides for Return of Admitted Documents reads as under:
"9. Return of admitted documents.--(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 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 there for--
(a) delivers to the proper officer for being substituted for the original,--
(i) in the case of a party to the suit, a certified copy, and
(ii) in the case of any other person, and ordinary copy which has been examined, compared and certified in the manner mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 of Order VII, 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.
3. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that a person who produces a document in the Court, is entitled to receive/take back the same in the following circumstances: -
"i) Clause (a) of sub-rule (1) deals with a case where suit has been disposed of against which no appeal is provided. This is one such circumstance where a party can take return of the document, which is marked in the case.
ii) The second circumstance is where although an appeal is provided, if no appeal is preferred within the time stipulated or appeal is filed and it is disposed of, the document shall be returned.
iii) The third circumstance is even though the case does not fall under the above mentioned circumstances, if a party substitutes a certified copy of the document which is already marked and undertakes to produce the original, if required to do so, the document could be returned. Therefore, without producing a certified copy of the document, which is already marked, a party is not entitled to get back the document."
In the instant case, certified copy of the document sought to be taken back is not produced. The trial Court although has not assigned proper reasons for dismissal of the application, yet the impugned order cannot be interfered with. There is no merit in the petition.
Therefore the Petition is dismissed.
