ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 11.01.2018 passed in IA.No.16469 of 2017 in OS.No.5965 of 2013 on the file of the learned VI Assistant Judge of City Civil Court, Chennai, thereby allowing the petition to receive the documents.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. The petitioner filed suit for recovery of money. While pending suit, the respondent filed petition to produce certain documents. The said application was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred civil revision petition before this Court and this Court by order dated 27.09.2017 in CRP.No.1290 of 2015, the petitioner therein was given liberty to make a comprehensive application along with a list of documents so as to enable the petitioner herein to produce it or to express inability. Therefore, again the respondent filed petition to produce certain documents and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent filed petition seeking to receive the following documents:

S. No	Date	Description of document	Remarks
1	26.03.2008	Offer letter given by IMFR Trust to the defendant	Ex.B1
2	31.03.2008	Request for relieving by the defendant to plaintiff	Ex.B2
3	22.10.2010	Representation / appeal letter by the defendant to plaintff	Ex.B3

4	26.10.2010	Plaintiff Institute president's approval in the lodgment schedule for PF and Gratuity	Ex.B4
5	30.08.2011	Payment Voucher issued by the Plaintiff to defendant	Ex.B5
6	31.08.2012	Relieving letter from the plaintiff institution to the defendant	Ex.B6
7	31.08.2012	Conduct and service letter from plaintiff to defendant	Ex.B7

The same was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the respondent was denied on two occasions to produce certain documents through the petitioner and both the applications were dismissed by the trial court, again the respondent come forward with the petition to receive those documents which are sought to be produced by the petitioner. When the respondent filed petition under Order VIII Rule 1(A)(iii), the respondent ought to have stated the reason why those documents were not produced along with the written statement and also to satisfy the court below to receive those documents. Without doing so, the court below mechanically allowed the petition. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment in the case of Shri Harkesh Singh & another Vs. Shri Ved Raj rendered in CM(M) No.945 of 2007 dated 02.02.2010, wherein it is held as follows:

3. Order 7 Rule 14 CPC is in respect of production of documents by the plaintiff along with the plaint. Order 8 Rule 1A requires defendant to produce all documents along with the WS. Order 8 Rule 1A (3) provides that the documents which have not been produced along with the WS cannot be produced in the Court, later on, without the leave of the Court. Order 13 deals with production, impounding and return of documents and provides that the parties to produce all documentary evidence in original before settlement of issues. Order 13 Rule 1(3) CPC makes exception only in respect of those documents which are to be handed over to witnesses for refreshing his memory or to which witness, may be confronted during cross examination. Thus, if any documents are to be produced by a party, the same are to be produced with pleadings. Subsequent production of documents can be done only if the Court is satisfied with the grounds explained for non production of documents.

4. In the present case, the petitioners had not filed the documents along with the WS neither filed a list of documents stating that the documents were relied upon by them but were not in their possession. The only ground stated by the petitioners is that due to inadvertence they did not file the documents. Inadvertence is no ground for allowing an application for pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document