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

1931 Supreme(Mad) 193

CURGENVEN
S. R. M. A. R. Ramanathan, Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
The Honble Rajah Sir Annamalai Chettiar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Curgenven, J.

1. These five Civil Revision Petitions are preferred against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah passed under Order 11, Rule 18 (1), Civil Procedure Code and allowing the respondents, who are defendants in O.S. No. 109 of 1930 on his file, inspection of the documents contained in a list attached to the plaint. The substantial questions which I have to decide are, firstly, whether the Court could pass such an order in respect of these documents and, secondly, whether it was justified in allowing inspection before the defendants had filed their written statements.

2. A plaintiffs documents are of two kinds, differentiated by Order 7, Rule 14 into (1) those which he sues upon, and (2) those which he relies upon as evidence in support of his claim. The order requires him to produce class (1) with his plaint and to enter class (2) in a list to be added or annexed to the plaint. Under Rule 15 of Order 11 a party may at any time give notice to any other party in whose pleadings or affidavits reference is made to any document to produce such document for the inspection of the party giving such notice. An attempt has been made to contend that this rule only r








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