Back
2005 Supreme(Mad) 668
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
Pauvel Raj - Appellant
Versus
Palaniammal - Respondents
Civil Revision Petition (PD) NO.960 of 2003 and C.M.P.No.6348 of 2003
Decided On : 16 April 2005
The specific denial requirement under Order 8 Rule 3 C.P.C and the relevance of documents in advancing a party's case.
Headnote:
Rule 76 C.P.C - Application to call for Attendance Register - Rule 76 C.P.C - Summary of Acts and Sections: Order 8 Rule 3 C.P.C, Order 13 Rule 1 C.P.C, Rule 75 C.P.C - The court discussed the relevance of the Attendance Register, the specific denial requirement under Order 8 Rule 3 C.P.C, and the proper procedure for application under Rule 75 C.P.C. The court emphasized that the Attendance Register would not substantially advance the defendant's case and confirmed the dismissal of the application under Rule 76 C.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant filed a petition under Rule 76 C.P.C to call for the Attendance Register from the Government Hospital, Pallapatti, claiming he was on duty at the hospital when the suit Promissory Note was executed. The trial court dismissed the application, leading to this Revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant's denial in the written statement was not specific as required by Order 8 Rule 3 C.P.C. It also emphasized that the Attendance Register would not substantially advance the defendant's case and confirmed the dismissal of the application under Rule 76 C.P.C.
Issues: The issues included the relevance of the Attendance Register and the proper exercise of discretion in refusing to call for the document.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendant's denial in the written statement was not specific as required by Order 8 Rule 3 C.P.C. It also emphasized that the Attendance Register would not substantially advance the defendant's case and confirmed the dismissal of the application under Rule 76 C.P.C.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the dismissal of the application under Rule 76 C.P.C and dismissed the Revision petition.
(Petition filed under Section 115 C.P.C against the fair and decretal order dated 2.1.2003 made in I.A.876 of 2002 in O.S.809 of 2001 by the Principal District Munsif, Trichy.)
This Revision is preferred against the fair and decretal order of the Principal District Munsif, Trichy made in I.A.876/2002 in O.S.No.809/2001 dated 2.1.2003, dismissing the petition filed under Rule 76 C.P.C to call for the Attendance Register from the Government Hospital, Pallapatti. Defendant is the Revision Petitioner.
2. The case of the Respondent / Plaintiff is that on 17.8.1998, the Defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the Plaintiff for family expenses and executed a suit Promissory Note in favour of the Plaintiff on the same day, agreeing to repay the principal amount together with interest. Inspite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice, the Defendant has not paid the amount. Hence, suit O.S.809/01 was filed by the Respondent / Plaintiff for recovery of Rs.20,400/- and subsequent interest and costs.
3. Denying the borrowal from the Plaintiff, the Defendant has filed written statement contending that in the year 1994 he has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,000/- from one Ramalingam, who is the husband of the Plaintiff. The said Ramalingam obtained signature in the blank Promissory Note from the Defendant along with one Yesuraj. The Defendant has paid the borrowed amount to the said Ramalingam but he has not returned back the blank Promissory Note containing his signature. Now, the said Ramalingam has set up his wife for filing this vexatious suit. The Defendant is not liable to pay any amount on the suit Promissory Note.
4. On the above pleadings, issues were framed. Parties adduced evidence. Witnesses were examined on the Plaintiff's side. On the Defendant's side, Defendant examined himself as D.W.1. At this stage, the Defendant has filed I.A.876/02 under Rule 76 C.P.C to call for the Attendance Register from the Government Hospital, Pallapatti. In the cross-examination, P.W.3 has stated that the suit Promissory Note was executed at 3.00 p.m in the Plaintiff's house at Trichy on 17.8.1998. According to the Defendant, on 17.8.1998, he was on duty in the Government Hospital,Pallapatti, Karur District from 7.00 a.m. To 7.00 p.m. and hence, the Defendant could not have executed the suit Promissory Note. To Substantiate his contention, the Defendant has filed the application I.A.876/02 to send for the Attendance Register from the Government Hospital, Pallapatti.
5. The application was resisted by the Respondent / Plaintiff stating that in the course of cross examination of D.W.1, he has explicitly admitted the genuineness of his signature in the suit Promissory Note. Under such circumstances, the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act is to be raised. The document called for / Attendance Register, cannot override the explicit admission of D.W.1 and the evidence adduced on the side of the Respondent / Plaintiff.
6. Upon consideration of the submissions made by both sides, the learned District Munsif dismissed the application finding that that in the written statement the Defendant has not pleaded that he was on duty in the Government Hospital, Pallapatti on 17.8.1998. Pointing out that nowhere in the written statement the Defendant has taken the plea about his non-availability at Trichy on 17.8.98. The Learned District Munsif found that the document called for is not a relevant document in determining the issues arising in the suit and on those grounds, dismissed the application.
7. Aggrieved over the dismissal of his application, the Revision Petitioner / Defendant has preferred this Revision. The Respondent / Plaintiff was served through her counsel appearing in the lower Court; but the Respondent / Plaintiff has not entered appearance. Heard the counsel for the Revision Petitioner / Defendant.
8. Drawing the attention of the Court to the written statement, learned counsel for the Revision petitioner has submitted that the d
