BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C. KUMARAPPAN, J.
Arulmigu Kalahatheeswarar Devasthanam, Represented through its Executive Officer - Appellant
Versus
S. Rathinam & Anr. - Respondents
C.R.P.(PD)(MD). No. 2444 of 2018 & C.M.P(MD). No. 10890 of 2018
Decided On : 15-09-2023
Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of C.P.C. - Application for filing documents - Court's discretion in granting leave to file documents
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the second defendant, filed a Civil Revision Petition against the order passed in an application to file two documents in a suit. The Court below had rejected the leave to file the documents, and the petitioner challenged this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Court below had delved into the merits of the documents at the threshold, which was impermissible. The Court held that the discretion to grant leave to file documents should not involve an assessment of the merits of the documents.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Court below erred in delving into the merits of the documents at the stage of seeking leave to file them.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that it is impermissible for the Court to go into the merits of the documents at the threshold when considering an application to file documents. The discretion to grant leave should not involve an assessment of the merits of the documents.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, and the documents sought to be filed were permitted to be filed. The Court directed the Court below to receive the documents subject to proof and relevance, with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal Order dated 26.02.2018 passed in I.A.No.2157 of 2017 in O.S.No.643 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul.)
1. The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed in I.A.No.2157 of 2017 in an application filed under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of C.P.C.
2. The petitioner herein is the second defendant. The first respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the first defendant before the Court below.
3. The short relief the petitioner wanted is that, they want to file two documents, namely, the certified copy of the decree and judgment in A.S.No.7 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul. However, the leave was rejected by the Court below. Aggrieved with the above said order, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. I have gone through the papers. It is admitted by either side that the suit is at the stage of marking of documents on behalf of this petitioner. However, from the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Court below has gone into the merits of the matter and has not granted leave to file the documents.
5. However, this Court is of the view that, going into the merits of the documents even at the threshold, when the document is sought to be produced is not permissible. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.
6. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed and the documents sought to be filed in I.A.No.2157 of 2017 is permitted to be filed. The Court below is directed to receive the documents subject to proof and the relevance. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Revision petition infructuous upon underlying suit withdrawal; no further adjudication required.
Settlement in underlying suit renders revision petition moot, warranting closure.
Revision petition becomes infructuous upon withdrawal of underlying suit.
Court permitted withdrawal of revision petition with no costs.
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.