Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 1606
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. RAJESWARAN, J.
G. Jagadeesan
Versus
R. Balasubramaniam
C.R.P. PD No. 466 of 2008 and M.P. No. 1 of 2008
Decided On : 9 June 2008
J. Pothiraj, for Petitioner
N. Manokaran, for Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an application to strike off the defense for non-compliance of document production under Order 11 Rule 21 C.P.C. is not maintainable without obtaining a court order under Rule 18 directing the other party to produce the documents for inspection.
Headnote:
Order 11 Rule 21 - Specific Performance of Sale Agreement - Order 11 Rule 15, 16 & 21 of C.P.C. - The court discussed the provisions of Order 11 Rule 15, 16 & 21 of C.P.C. and emphasized the requirement for obtaining a court order under Rule 18 before seeking to strike off the defense under Rule 21. The failure to obtain such an order rendered the application under Rule 21 misconceived and not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for Specific Performance of a sale agreement. The defendant, in his written statement, referred to various court proceedings and documents, and the plaintiff filed an application to strike off the defense for non-compliance of document production.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's application under Order 11 Rule 21 C.P.C. to strike off the defense was contrary to the provisions of C.P.C. as it did not follow the necessary steps under Rule 18 and was therefore misconceived and not maintainable.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the plaintiff's application to strike off the defense for non-compliance of document production under Order 11 Rule 21 C.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the application under Rule 21 was not maintainable as it did not follow the necessary steps under Rule 18, which requires obtaining a court order directing the other party to produce the documents for inspection.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.6.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Coimbatore in I.A. No. 196 of 2007 in O.S. No. 748 of 2004 dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff to strike off the defence set up by the respondent/second defendant in his written statement for non compliance of production of documents referred to in his written statement.
2. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 748 of 2004 on the file of I Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No. II), Coimbatore is the revision petitioner before this Court. He is aggrieved by the order of the trial Court dated 28.6,2007, by which his application filed in I.A. No. 196 of 2007 under Order 11 Rule 15, 16 & 21 of C.P.C. was dismissed by the trial Court.
3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 748 of 2004 for Specific Performance of the sale agreement dt.12.9.1996 said to have been executed by the first defendant in the suit, originally the suit was filed against only one defendant, who is the brother of the second defendant. Later on, the respondent herein filed I.A. No. 1264 of 1998 to implead himself as a party to the suit and the trial Court allowed the application and the respondent herein has been impleaded as the second defendant in the suit. The respondent/second defendant filed a written statement in June 2005, wherein he has stated that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and the suit has been filed as a result of collusion between the petitioner/plaintiff and the first defendant as the first defendant has no title and he could not enter into any agreement with any one for selling the same. In his written statement, the respondent/second defendant referred to so many Court proceedings, namely, O.S. No. 1115 of 1993, O.S. No. 1 of 1994 (renumbered as O.S. No. 730 of 1998), O.S. No. 597 of 1996, O.S. No. 3566 of 1996 O.S. No. 1825 of 1997 and O.S. No. 805 of 1995 (renumbered as O.S. No. 730 of 1998) involving him and the property.
4. The suit was posted for trial on 6.3.2007. At that time, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 196 of 2007 praying to pass an order to strike off the defence set up by the respondent/second defendant in his written statement for the non compliance of the production of the documents referred to in his written statement.
5. In the affidavit filed in I.A. No. 196 of 2007, the petitioner/plaintiff has stated that the respondent/second defendant in his written statement, referred to numerous suits, purported to have been filed between himself, his father, first defendant and his wife and he was not a party to those proceedings. Hence, he tendered a notice in Form No. 7 of Appendix C of C.P.C. to the respondent/second defendant to cause production of those documents. Instead of producing the documents, the respondent/second defendant filed a memo stating that he is not liable to produce those documents and if the petitioner/plaintiff was in need of those documents, he himself could obtain them. Hence, he filed I.A. No. 196 of 2007 for the aforesaid relief.
6. This application was resisted by the respondent/second defendant by filing a counter affidavit, wherein he has stated that when the suit was listed for his evidence on 6.3.2007, the petitioner/plaintiff instead of letting in evidence, gave a notice requesting him to produce the certified copies of decree and judgment in a number of cases, failing which, he filed a memo stating that the petitioner/plaintiff could get the certified copies if he was in need of the same. The respondent/second defendant pointed out that the suit was already 9 years old end the petitioner/plaintiff was not interested in proceeding with the suit. The respondent/second defendant further contended that the Order 11 Rule 15 C.P.C. does not entitle a person to ask for the documents referred to in the pleadings after the settlement of issue. It was further stated that the relevancy of the
