HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. KUMARESH BABU, J.
Dr. P.N. Sathiyamoorthy - Appellant
Versus
Dr. Navin Noushad - Respondent
A.Nos. 5958, 5959 & 5960 of 2022 in C.S.No. 291 of 2020
Decided On : 20-03-2023
Additional Documents - Application for Leave to File Additional Documents - Order XIV Rule 8 of OS Rules, Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC - Sl.Nos.1 to 15, 16 to 18, 19 and 20 - The court allowed the applicant to file additional documents listed in Sl.Nos.1 to 15 and Sl.Nos.19 and 20 only, rejecting the leave for the documents in Sl.Nos.16 to 18. The applications seeking issuance of subpoena to the Bank Managers were allowed.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought leave to file additional documents and issue subpoenas to Bank Managers for production of original cheques in a suit for recovery with interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the applicant to file certain additional documents and issue subpoenas, rejecting the leave for some documents, and ordered the suit to be relegated for further evidence.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file additional documents and issue subpoenas in the suit for recovery.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the relevance of the additional documents and the necessity of issuing subpoenas based on the arguments presented by both parties.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the application for leave to file additional documents and allowed the applications seeking issuance of subpoena to the Bank Managers, with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
(Common Prayer: Original Applications filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of OS Rules read with Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC, to grant leave to the applicant/plaintiff to file additional documents as set out in the schedule hereto, to issue subpoena to the Manager, Indian Bank, Clock Tower Branch, Royapettah, for production of the original cheques issued by the applicant/plaintiff drawn in favour of the defendant and to adduce oral evidence as listed to the schedule to the judges summons and to issue subpoena to the Manager, Indian Bank Jawahar Nagar Branch, Kolathur, for production of the original cheques issued by the applicant/plaintiff drawn in favour of the defendant and to adduce oral evidence as listed to the schedule to the judges summons.)
Common Order:
The instant applications have been filed seeking to grant leave to the applicant to file additional documents as set out in the list of documents annexed to the Judge-s Summons, to issue subpoena to the Manager, Indian Bank, Clock Tower Branch, Royapettah for production of the original cheques issued by the applicant drawn in favour of the respondent and to adduce oral evidence as listed to the schedule to the judges summons and to issue subpoena to the Manager, Indian Bank Jawahar Nagar Branch, Kolathur for production of the original cheques issued by the applicant drawn in favour of the respondent and to adduce oral evidence as listed to the schedule to the judges summons.
2. The suit had been filed seeking for a recovery together with interest for a sum Rs.1,77,39,706/- being the suit claim on the principal sum of Rs.1,21,25,000/- out of a total sum of Rs.2,81,25,000/- loaned by the plaintiff to the defendant.
3. Heard Mr.K.Bijai Sundar, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent Mr.C.Vidhusan.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that after the completion of pleadings and framing of issues, the suit was relegated to the learned Additional Master for recording of evidence. On completion of chief, the applicant was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the defendant. In the course of cross-examination, a question was put across to the applicant as to whether he would be willing to produce the financial statements in respect of the bank accounts, that the applicant is maintaining at the Indian Bank, Clock Tower Branch, Royapettah and Indian Bank Jawahar Nagar Branch, Kolathur for the period from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. A further question to certain information relating to a First Information Report and calendar cases, the learned counsel for the defendant had marked some documents as Exs.D1 to D6 through the applicant who was examined himself as PW1.
5. A suggestion during the cross-examination would presuppose that the dispute between the applicant and certain third parties arising out of financial transactions between them is sought to be put against the applicant/plaintiff. Hence to explain that the said transaction has nothing to do with the present suit claim, the applicant seeks to mark documents listed in Sl.Nos.1 to 15 of the list of documents annexed with the Judge-s Summons. That part to the question as to whether the applicant would be willing to produce the bank statement, he would propose to mark the documents in Sl.Nos.19 and 20 of the list annexed to the Judge-s Summons.
6. He would further submit during the cross-examination, it has been suggested that the cheques upon which the plaintiff claims to have made payment to the defendant was not issued to the defendant, he had sought a prayer to issue subpoena to the respective Bank Managers to produce the original cheques to substantiate his claim. He would submit that documents listed in the annexure to the Judge-s Summons and also prayer to issue subpoena to the respective Bank Managers have all been necessitated in view of the suggestions put to the applicant during the course of the cross-examination. Hence, he would pray for this Court to grant the prayers as s
The court has the discretion to grant or reject the application for leave to file additional documents and issue subpoenas based on the relevance and necessity of the documents and evidence in the su....
Relevance of documentary evidence in substantiating the averments made in the written statement.
Point of Law : There cannot be any bar to accept the certified copies of the documents which were earlier accepted by the Court even in absence of any leave petition.
The court established that non-filing of documents due to negligence does not constitute reasonable cause for allowing additional evidence under the CPC.
Point of law: the principles stated in paragraph 8 of Mechelec’s case will now stand superseded, given the amendment of O.XXXVII R.3, and the binding decision of four judges in Milkhiram’s case, as f....
The court held that lack of coordination between the plaintiff's director and legal counsel constituted reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents, allowing their introduction in evidence.
The court allowed the production of documents not annexed to the plaint due to lack of coordination, establishing that reasonable cause for non-disclosure can be recognized under procedural rules.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.