The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order 7 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows the reception of relevant documents with the leave of the Court, especially if the party has a genuine reason to produce it.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Respondent Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 18.02.2021 made in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.105 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mettupalayam.)

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 18.02.2021 made in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.105 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mettupalayam.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.105 of 2019. The said suit has been filed to direct the respondent / defendant to vacate the suit property and to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property to the petitioner / plaintiff and to put the petitioner in possession of the suit property and to further direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards damages for one year at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m.,and direct to pay future damages at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m.to the petitioner. Resisting the same, written statement has been filed by the respondent / defendant. Pending suit, I.A.No.2 of 2021 was filed by the petitioner / plaintiff to permit the petitioner to produce the original property tax receipt in the name of the petitioner. Opposing the same, a counter statement was filed by the respondent / defendant. Considering the pleadings and counter pleadings, the court below dismissed the said petition. As against the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present Revision.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the court below failed to see that the petition is only to receive the document and relevancy and admissibility of the same can be decided only at the time of marking the document. Further, the observation of the court below is that the document sought to be produced is after the suit and such a finding cannot be rendered at the stage of production of the document and the same can be dealt with only at the time of marking. Hence sought to allow the petition.

3. Though notice to the sole respondent was served through lower court counsel, Mr.P.Rajendran on 23.06.2021 and privately on 18.06.2021, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent and hence the name of the respondent was ordered to be printed in the cause list on 19.07.2021 and accordingly, the name of the respondent was also printed, however, there is no representation on the side of the respondent either through counsel or in-person.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents placed on record.

5. On going through the provisions under Order 7 Rule 14 Civil Procedure Code, it is clear that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.” The said provisions concluded that if any document or copy thereon could not be filed with the plaint, it may be received in evidence with the leave of the Court, which the Court shall grant in genuine case. The rigour of the rule does not apply to the documents which are sought to be adduced as corroborative evidence in support of the claim made in the plaint.

6. Now applying the said principle in the case in our hands, it is necessary for the petitioner / plaintiff to prove that she has genuine case. In this regard, on going through the details of document, which was produced along with the application filed by the petitioner before the trial Court, it is seen that the document is relevant to the suit schedule property, In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/defendant, he had denied the marking of the said document and not proved that the said document is not relevant to the suit schedule property.

7. In the above