A party has right to obtain a copy of any document produced in court even though it is not marked in evidence.

ORDER: The plaintiff is the petitioner. The plaintiff has filed the suit O.S. No.430 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karur for permanent injunction against the two defendants - husband and wife.

2. The defendants filed I.A. No.577 of 2002 with a prayer to send for certain documents from the custody of the District Court. along with the application, they also filed a copy of the document called ‘complaint’ given by the defendants to the Sub-Court, Karur.

3. The plaintiff filed a copy application on 6.11.2002 requesting a copy of the complaint dated 30.10.2002 mentioned in the I.A. No.577 of 2002 filed by the defendants. On the same day, the learned Additional District Munsif returned the copy application with the following remark.‘How the petitioner is entitled to get c/c of the document. Since it is not marked.

Sd/

A.D.M.

6.11.2002.

Once again on 12.11.2002, the plaintiff represented the copy application with the following endorsement;

‘Under Rule 127 of C.R.P. the certificate copy can be obtained without being marked as an exhibit. Hence certificate copy may be issued.

Sd/

12.11.2002.‘

The learned Additional District Munsif again returned the copy application with the following remark:

‘Retd.

This E.A. Retd. On that referred as above is not applicable to this C.A.

Sd/

A.D.M.

14.11.2002.‘

The rejection of the copy application filed by the learned Additional District Munsif is the cause for this revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that under O.11, Rule 15 of C.P.C. a party has got the right to inspect any document produced by the opposite party in Court and under Rule 127 of Civil Rules of Practice, the Court is bound to grant copy of the document produced in Court, whether it forms part of the record of the suit or not.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents Ms.Subraja would strenuously contend that under Rule 62 of Civil Rules of Practice only documents referred to in the plaint or written statement and filed along with the above pleadings or thereafter alone can be granted copies if required by the other side and not all the documents filed.

6. Heard the rival contentions of both side and also perused the materials available on record.

7. The complaint dated 30.10.2002 given by the defendants to the Subordinate Judge, Karur as admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents was to keep the sale agreement produced in previous proceeding in safe custody for the purpose of marking the same in this case also.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that it contains certain defamatory, false and malicious allegations against the plaintiff and probably, the plaintiff may prefer to take legal action for giving such a complaint.

9. We are not concerned about the contents of the complaint or the intention of the complainant. What we are concerned is whether a party is entitled to get the certified copy of a document produced in Court, but not marked and which has not become a part of the record of that case.

10. What is a ‘proceeding’ has been defined in Rule 2(10) of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders. ‘Proceeding’ includes all documents presented to or filed in Court by any party, or commissioner or other officer of Court, other than documents produced as evidence;

Rule 62 of Civil Rules of Practice permits a party to inspect and obtain a copy of any document received or referred to in a plaint or written statement and filed in Court therewith or thereafter.

11. In this case the document was not filed either with the plaint or with the written statement, but along with the I.A. Petition in I.A. No.577 of 2002. The I.A. itself was filed to send for some other documents in which the defendants have enclosed a copy of the complaint dated 30.10.2002 said to have been given to the Subordinate Judge, Karur. Therefore, it is clear that the complaint dated 30.10.2002 of the defendants have been produced in Court by the defendants themselves along with the I.A. No.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document