SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 66130

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dr. R.N.MANJULA, J
Dr.Vasantha Rajamanickam – Appellant
Versus
Indira Devaraj Bhat – Respondent
A. No. 1746 of 2025 | C.S. No. 955 of 2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s.R.Ramya
For the Respondents: M/s.F.Kamal Baig (D9), Mr.T.M.Mano (D10), Mr.M.Nandakumar (D3), Mr.M.Jawahar (D1)

Documents not admitted remain at the plaintiff's risk, but may be returned for specific purposes with an undertaking to produce them at trial.

Headnote:This application involves a request under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules for the return of specific original plaint documents filed in C.S. No. 955 of 2017, to be substituted with certified copies. The court found that the original documents sought for return were not admitted documents; however, they were ordered to be returned on the plaintiff's undertaking to produce them at trial. The proposal of the plaintiff to audit these documents was upheld, leading to the granting of the application.

Table of Content
1. court's decision to return documents with undertakings (Para 9 , 9)
2. request for return of original documents for auditing (Para 1 , 2)
3. discussion on relevance and custody of documents (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. final ruling and procedural order (Para 10)

9.S.Ramesh Kumar ... Respondents Prayer : This application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order XIII Rule 9 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, to direct the Registry to return the original plaint document Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 15 filed by the plaintiff in C.S. No.

955 of 2017 and substitute the same with certified copy of the same.

For applicant : M/s.R.Ramya For Respondents : M/s.F.Kamal Baig (D9)

Mr.T.M.Mano (D10)

Mr.M.Nandakumar (D3)

Mr.M.Jawahar (D1)

O R D E R

The application has been filed to return the original plaint document Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 15 filed by the plaintiff in C.S. No.

955 of 2017 and substitute the same with certified copies of the same.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant /plaintiff submitted that the above documents mentioned in the Judges Summons are required for the purpose of auditing and for the above purpose, the original of those documents already filed along with the plaint have to be returned by substituting them with the certified copies of the same.

3. The above application has been opposed by the fifth respondent, who has filed his counter stating that the fifth respondent is not able to understand what kind of accounting and auditing the above documents are required.

4. On perusal of the counter filed by the fifth respondent, excepting the above points the rest of the points pleaded in the counter are about the merits of the case, which are not relevant to the application filed to return of documents seeking permission to substitute them with the certified copies.

5. On perusal of the plaint, the documents against Sl. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 15 filed by the plaintiff in C.S. No. 955 of 2017 are described as under:-

S. No. Date Description of Documents Nature
1. 19.05.1976 Original Sale deed executed by AL.Umayal in favour of the 1st defendant and her husband Original
2. 10.09.2005 Patta in the names of the 1st defendant and her husband Original
3. 01.12.1993 Original Agreement of Development entered between the 1st defendant, her husband and the plaintiff Original
6. 10.07.2017 Hand written Letter sent by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff Original
7. Draft sale deed handed over by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff's husband Original
9. 16.07.2017 Original Agreement of Sale entered into between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff Original
11. 17.07.2017 Original approved sale deed printed on non- judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/- Original
S. No. Date Description of Documents Nature
15 07.12.2017 Rejoinder letter sent by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant's reply letter dated 09.11.2017 sent by registered post acknowledgment due Original

6. Admittedly, these documents were not in the custody of the defendants at any time before.

7. The learned counsel for the applicant /plaintiff submitted that as per Order XIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, any person, whether a party to the suit or not, desirous of receiving back any document produced by him in the suit and placed on the record shall, unless the document is impounded under rule 8, be entitled to receive back the same.

8. However, the above procedure is with regard to the admitted documents, but now these documents, which are sought to be returned are not admitted documents. Hence, it is at the pleasure of the applicant /plaintiff either to retain the documents or to get back the documents. It is at the risk of the plaintiff to produce these documents again if at all the plaintiffs intend to mark these documents as evidence on the side of the plaintiff.

9. As the documents now sought are unexpected documents and the appl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top