C.R.P.No.1178 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 09.03.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

C.R.P.No.1178

of

2021 &

C.M.P.No.9051 of 2021

D.Rajamani

... Petitioner

Vs.

P.Ramakannan

... 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.

For Petitioner

: Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja

For Respondent

: No appearance

O R D E R

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.

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.1178 of 2021

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

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.1178 of 2021

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

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.1178 of 2021

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