Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 88929
MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.DEEPAK KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
Vengaeeswarar Devasthanam – Respondent
CRP 4866 2023
Claimants are not required to file a separate application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the CPC to receive a document if they produce it along with a 65(B) certificate.
Headnote:
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE - RECEPTION - CLAIMANTS PRODUCED DOCUMENT I.E., EXTRACT OF THE LAND REGISTER - CLAIMANTS WANT TO MARK ON THEIR SIDE ALONG WITH CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 65B - TRIAL JUDGE REFUSED TO MARK THE DOCUMENT STATING THAT THE CLAIMANTS HAVE TO FILE APPLICATION TO RECEIVE THE DOCUMENT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 14 (3) OF CPC - HELD, NO NECESSITY TO FILE SEPARATE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VII RULE 14(3) OF CPC - DOCUMENT PRODUCED ON THE SIDE OF THE CLAIMANTS ALONG WITH 65(B) CERTIFICATE ITSELF IS SUFFICIENT.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants produced a document, an extract of the land register, before the trial court. They wanted to mark it on their side along with a certificate under Section 65B. However, the trial judge refused to allow them to mark the document, stating that they had to file an application to receive the document under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that there was no necessity to file a separate application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC. The document produced on the side of the claimants along with the 65(B) certificate itself was sufficient.
Issues: Whether the claimants were required to file a separate application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the CPC to receive the document.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on its earlier decision in C.R.P.No.1020 of 2023, which held that there is no necessity to file a separate application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC when a claimant produces a document along with a 65(B) certificate.
Final Decision: The court allowed the civil revision petition and set aside the finding of the trial judge. The claimants were permitted to mark the document.
C.R.P.No. 4866 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.R.P.No. 4866 of 2023
S. Deepak Kumar
.. Petitioner
Vs
1.Vengeeswarar Devasthanam
rep., by its heridatory Trustee,
G. Premanand
2.Special Deputy Collector (L.A.)
Tamil Nadu Urban Development Projecting
Chennai @ Poonamallee,
Chennai – 600 056.
.. Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order of the learned VI
Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai dated 16.11.2023 in L.A.O.P.No.68 of
2014.
For Petitioner
: Mr. K.V. Babu
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No. 4866 of 2023
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging “A” Diary
Extract made by the trial Judge in respect of reception of the document. The
second claimant has preferred this revision.
2. Before the trial Court, the claimants had produced document
i.e., extract of the land register and the claimants want to mark on their side
along with certificate under Section 65B, as required under law. But that
document was not permitted to mark by the trial Judge stating that the
claimants have to file application to receive the document under Order VII
Rule 14 (3) of CPC. Aggrieved by the said finding, the second claimant has
preferred this revision.
3. Admittedly, as a claimants they are conducting proceedings
before the LAOP and during evidence, they have produced document i.e.,
extract of the land register. Since the claimants is a temple, they produced
65(B) certificate. So there is no necessity to file separate application under
Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC and the same was also rightly observed by this
2/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No. 4866 of 2023
Court in C.R.P.No.1020 of 2023, which is squarely applicable to the facts of
the case. Therefore, the document produced on the side of the claimants
along with 65(B) certificate itself is sufficient. Therefore, the finding made
by the trial Judge is set aside. The claimant / petitioner herein is permitted to
mark document.
4. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.
21.12.2023
Index :Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
AT
To
The VI Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.
3/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No. 4866 of 2023
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
AT
C.R.P.No. 4866 of 2023
21.12.2023
4/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
