ORDER: The revision petitioner is the petitioner in I.A. No.397 of 1999 and the third defendant in O.S. No.32 of 1998 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai.

2. Before the settlement of issues between the parties in the above suit, the revision petitioner filed I.A. No.397 of 1999 under O.13, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to produce the documents that are provided in the list accompanied in the above application, submitting that the same could not be traced earlier and therefore, could not be produced. However, the respondent/ plaintiff objected to the permission on the grounds that the first document was not registered and therefore, no right could flow under the same in favour of the revision petitioner, that the second document was a fabricated one for the purpose of the case and the respondent/ plaintiff is not a party in the alleged arrangement made under the second document and that, in any event, the documents 3 to 8 are not related to the suit properties.

3. Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, by order dated 6.12.1999, rejected the permission holding that the revision petitioner ought to have produced the said documents even at the time of presenting the written statement as per O.8, Rule 8-A of the Civil Procedure Code and that the revision petitioner had not shown any good cause for permitting him to produce the documents. Hence, the above revision petition.

4. Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the revision petitioner could not produce the documents in question along with the written statement as per O.8, Rule 8-A of the Civil Procedure Code, as the same could not be traced at that time. According to Mr.A. Muthukumar, the reason that the documents could not be traced at the time of filing the written statement would be a good and sufficient reason to permit the petitioner to produce the documents.

5.Per contra, Mr.Rangarathinam, learned counsel for the respondent, placing reliance on the decisions in K.Saradha Devi v. S.Sivaramaraju, A.I.R. 1995 A.P. 291, Agastin v. Devasagayan, (1999)2 C.T.C. 555 and Krishnamuthy Chettiar v. Thangaraju Padayatchi, (2000)2 M.L.J. 827, contends that the delay in producing the documents cannot be condoned, if the reasons are absurd and capricious, particularly when the documents are not permissible in law.

6. In this regard, I am obliged to refer Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 8-A of O.8 and O.13, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, which read as follows:

O.8, Rule 8-A: Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed by him: (1) When a defendant bases his defence upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document or a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement.

O.13, Rule 1: Documentary evidence to be produced (at or before the settlement of issues): (1) The parties or their pleaders shall produce, (at or before the settlement of issues), all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely, and which has not already been filed in Court, and all documents which the Court has ordered to be produced.

(2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced: Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs. 2. Effect of non-production of documents: (1) No documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of Rule 1 shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-production thereof; and the Court receiving any such evidence shall record the reasons for so doing.

(2) Noting in Sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents: (a) produced for the cross-examination of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document