JUDGMENT :

D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the dismissal of fair and decreetal order, dated 19.11.2015 passed in I.A. No. 1111 of 2015 in O.S. No. 10418 of 2010, on the file of the VII-Additional Sessions Court, Chennai, pending disposal of the above CRP.

(A) The Petition:

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendant in the suit as against the Order of the Learned VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 19.11.2015, in I.A. No. 11111 of 2015 in O.S. No. 10418 of 2015, whereby the learned Judge allowed the application filed by the Respondent/ Plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to grant leave to produce 19 additional documents and mark them as exhibits in support of his case.

(B) The Facts:

2. The above O.S. No. 10418 of 2015, is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,53,207/- with further interests and costs. The amount is claimed due towards the supply of goods namely ‘laminated show boxes’ as per the statement of accounts maintained between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant is contesting the suit. While admitting that it had business transactions, it is the defendant’s case that the dues would be paid then and there and there are no dues. And that the suit is speculative and the invoices relied upon have nothing to do with them. The further contention is that the suit is barred by limitation and the alleged payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- made on 3.10.2007 was not made by them towards the balance outstanding but the plaintiff had misused the cheque.

3. Originally along with the plaint four documents, that is: (i) Statement of Accounts; (ii) 34 Nos. of Invoices, (iii) Legal notice caused by the plaintiff and (iv) the postal acknowledgment were produced by the plaintiff.

4. On verification of the suit papers by this court, it is seen that on behalf the plaintiff one Mr. Giriraj, was examined as PW-1. He was cross examined on 02.07.2015, 06.07.2015, 09.07.2015 and 15.07.2015. On 15.07.2015, the plaintiff was specifically posed the following question “TAMIL” 2 statements of accounts-d “TAMIL” produce “TAMIL.” The cross examination was completed on 15.07.2015 and the matter was posted for further evidence of the plaintiff. On 24.07.2017, the plaintiff filed an application to receive the additional documents and the application was ordered and the matter was posted for examination of the plaintiff to mark the additional documents on 21.09.2016, on which date, it was informed to the Lower Court that a stay has been granted by this Court in the Civil Revision Petition and the matter is pending at this stage.

(C) The Submissions:

5. Mr. Sriram, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant, would submit (a) the document Nos. 1 and 2, sought to be produced as additional documents are Ledger Accounts and as such, as per Order VII, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, the same ought to have produced along with plaint or the original ledgers ought to have been produced and got compared at the stage of the filing of the plaint itself and therefore, as per Order VII, Rule 17, read with Rule 14, the plaintiff is barred in law to produce the said documents as additional documents and they cannot be received as evidence at this stage and (b) the application is belated and the plaintiff inspite of being put the stand of the defendant to notice in the written statement and inspite of being cross examined, omitted to produce the documents and belatedly cannot be permitted to produce the same.

6. Per contra, Mr. S. Diwakar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that (a) that the provision contained in the Order VII, Rule 17, was relevant to the yesteryear, wherein, the ledgers were physically maintained in the shop and is no longer relevant, since now the statement of accounts are all maintained digitally through accounting software and only computer gene