Inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked to bypass or conflict with express statutory provisions that comprehensively prescribe procedures for return of documents not admitted in evidence. Courts must strictly adhere to mandated procedural protocols to prevent arbitrary deviation.

JUDGMENT :

P. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

1. “On an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, can a document produced in Court by one party and not admitted in evidence, be returned to the opposite party on his application?” The matter has been referred to this Bench on account of doubts entertained regarding the correctness of the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Vinod Kumar S. v. ICIC Bank  [judgment dated 15.6.2022 in O.P. (C) No. 1032/2021], wherein the question was answered in the affirmative.

2. A suit for declaration of title and possession over the plaint schedule property was dismissed by the trial court on 16.01.2017 as “not pressed”, at the instance of the plaintiff-petitioner herein, purportedly pursuant to a settlement arrived at between the parties. It is alleged in the plaint that, although the property was intended to be purchased in the name of the petitioner, the respondent, who had been entrusted by the petitioner with the task of making arrangements for the execution and registration of the sale deed in his absence, dishonestly caused the sale deed to be registered in her own name, despite the entire sale consideration having been paid by the petitioner. Subsequently, in the year 2022, the respondent-defendant filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”), seeking return of the original sale deed standing in her name, though the same had been produced before the court by the petitioner. According to the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that the sale deed was registered in her name, the petitioner had fraudulently obtained its possession from the registering authority. The petitioner, on the other hand, contended that the sale deed could not be returned to the respondent, as the suit had been withdrawn as not pressed on the expectation that the respondent would act in terms of the settlement.

3. The trial court however held that, in the light of the principles laid down in Muhammed Master v. Abu Haji,  1981 KLT 578 and Philomina Joseph v. State of Kerala,  2009 (1) KHC 575, dismissal of a suit as not pressed virtually amounts to a decision by consent, whereby the contentions raised in the pleadings stand decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant, with the consequence that a subsequent claim would be barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code. Accordingly, the court allowed the application, holding that mere production of a document by a party would not confer upon him any superior right over the true owner thereof. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Noticing the specific statutory provisions contained in Rule 7 of Order XIII of the Code and Rule 132 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala, the learned Single Judge doubted the correctness of the view taken by another learned Single Judge of this Court in the judgment dated 15.06.2022 in O.P. (C) No.1032 of 2021. In that case, the Court had allowed a similar application and set aside the order of the trial court dismissing a request for return of a title deed produced by the opposite party, which had been rejected on the ground that Rule 132 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala, mandated a contrary course.

5. We have heard Sri. A.S. Shammy Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,