High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
Devaraj Padayachi - Appellant
Versus
Chakravarthy & Others - Respondents
C.R.P.(PD).No.589 of 2005 & C.M.P.No.6276 of 2005
Decided On : 13 September 2006
Order 13 Rule 2 of CPC - Reception of Documents - Admissibility of Documents in Civil Proceedings
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed an application under Order 13 Rule 2 of CPC to receive several documents. The trial Judge allowed the application in part, permitting the reception of Documents 6 and 7 but rejecting the petition in respect of other documents, citing that they were depositions of witnesses in a criminal proceeding.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the depositions of witnesses in a criminal proceeding were inadmissible in evidence under Section 145, 32, and 33 of the Evidence Act. It held that only admissible documents should be produced, and there was no reason to interfere with the trial Judge's order.
Issues: The issue revolved around the admissibility of documents in a civil proceeding, specifically whether depositions of witnesses in a criminal proceeding could be received under Order 13 Rule 2 of CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Section 145, 32, and 33 of the Evidence Act to conclude that the depositions of witnesses in a criminal proceeding were inadmissible in evidence in a civil proceeding. It emphasized that only admissible documents should be produced.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit within a month.
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and dereetal order dated 01.02.2005 passed in I.A.No.1336/2004 in O.S.No.222/96 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti.)
The order passed in I.A.No.1336/2004 in O.S.No.222/1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti, which was filed under Order 13 Rule 2 of CPC, is under challenge before this Court. The said IA was filed by the plaintiff to receive several documents. The learned trial Judge allowed the application in part. The learned trial Judge has permitted to receive the Documents 6 and 7, but rejected the petition in respect of other documents on the ground that they are the depositions of the witnesses in a criminal proceedings in STC.No.169/1995. The learned Trial Judge has given reasons in his order for dismissal as under Section 145 of the Evidence Act only the contradictions in the deposition of the said persons can be marked. Under Section 32 and 33 of the Evidence Act the deposition of living persons cannot be marked and it is in admissible in evidence.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that there is no embargo for the Court to receive the documents and the validity of the document can be considered at the time of the trial. But this contention cannot be upheld because no useful purpose will be served if the documents are allowed to be received now subject to the Question of admissibility of the same at the time of the trial. So, the documents which are admissible in nature alone can be produced. I do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered order of the learned District Munsif, Panruti, passed in I.A.No.1336/2004 in O.S.No.222/96, which does not warrant any interference from this Court.
3. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit viz. O.S.No.222/96 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.