SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1943 Supreme(Mad) 149

HORWILL
Minor Munusamy Mudaliar – Appellant
Versus
Chengalvaraya Naicker – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Horwill, J.

1. The petitioner filed a suit on a promissory note executed in the name of the manager of the family which fell to the share of the petitioner in partition. With his plaint he filed the promissory note, but not the partition decree under which this promissory note fell to his share. The Court called for a copy of the decree, but as it was not produced within the time allowed, the plaint was rejected. The petitioner thereupon filed a review application, which was dismissed on the ground that the Court could not condone the laches of the petitioner.

2. The only grounds on which a plaint can be rejected are set out in Order VII, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code. The non-production of a document on which the plaintiff relies is not one of the reasons. In Rule 14 of the same 6rder a plaintiff is required to produce in Court when the plaint is presented any document sued upon which is in his possession or power; but even if the decree be considered to be such a document, the punishment for the non-production of such a document is not the rejection of the plaint, but that set out in Rule 18 of Order VII, viz., that the document shall not, without the leave of the Court, be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top