Documents not mentioned in pleadings cannot be admitted as evidence; procedural fairness mandates that parties must support claims with appropriate pleadings.

ORDER :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

The Revision is at the instance of the plaintiff who was unsuccessful in I.A. No. 5 of 2023 in O.S. No.6782 of 2021. The plaintiff/Reserve Bank of India has filed a suit in O.S. No. 6782 of 2021 for recovery of monies from the respondent/defendant. Pending the suit, the respondent/defendant filed a petition to receive document viz., oral enquiry proceedings conducted by the plaintiff against the defendant under Order VIII Rule 1(A)(3) r/w Section 151 CPC in I.A. No. 5 of 2023, which was allowed by the Trial Court.

2. I have heard Mr.T.Poornam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Govindasamy, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that pending the suit for recovery of money, the respondent/defendant sought for filing the oral enquiry proceedings as a document in the suit to establish that the report of the Enquiry Officer was clearly biased and partisan. The learned counsel would state that the plaintiff has already filed the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer and there was no necessity to file the oral enquiry proceedings. The learned counsel would further state that what was attempted to be filed was only a truncated portion and not the entire proceedings and therefore, the said document was neither admissible nor material for the purposes of adjudication of the suit. However, the Trial Court has erroneously allowed the Application, as against which the present revision has been filed.

4. Per contra, Mr.A.Govindasamy, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant would submit that the respondent had already taken out an Application in I.A. No. 3 of 2023 seeking a direction the plaintiff to produce the Domestic Enquiry proceedings. However, the said Application was dismissed, giving liberty to the respondent to exhibit the Domestic Enquiry Proceedings subject to ensuring accuracy. He would therefore submit that the earlier Application had given liberty to the respondent/defendant and hence there was no impediment for the said document being received and rightly the Court has allowed the Application.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced on either side and I have also gone through the order passed by the Trial Court as well as the decisions on which reliance has been placed on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

6. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court has proceeded to allow the Application holding that “ The original suit was filed in the year 2007. Now the case is pending for cross examination of P.W.1. Though it is not pleaded in the written statement it is not too late to receive the same on the side of the petitioner/defendant. Hence in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and also given an opportunity to the petitioner to putforth his plea and considering the pleadings this Court do not want to technically. At that score, this petition is allowed. No costs.”

7. The reasoning of the the Trial Court to permit the reception of the document from the defendant was to give an opportunity to the defendant to putforth his plea without standing on technicalities and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. However, the Trial Court has found that there is no plea in the written statement with regard to the said document that is now sought to be introduced. The suit was initially filed before this Court even in the year 2007 and the respondent/defendant has filed his written statement as early as on 20^th September 2007.Admittedly, the said document was not filed along with