Under Order XIII Rule 9 CPC, a party who produced a document is entitled to its return after suit disposal; an auto driver owning an auto is not a 'labourer' under Section 60(1)(c) CPC for exemption from attachment.

COMMON ORDER

The decree-holder/plaintiff is the revision petitioner in CRP.No.2103 of 2023, aggrieved by the dismissal of his application seeking return of the original plaint document, marked as Ex.A5.

2.The judgment-debtor/defendant is the revision petitioner in CRP.No.3702 of 2023, challenging the decision of the Executing Court, allowing E.P.No.79 of 2021.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their litigating status before the trial Court.

4.I have heard Mr.R.Ananth, for Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Mrs.K.Sri Rudhra for Mr.R.Ravindran, learned counsel for the defendant.

5.Mr.R.Ananth, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit that the plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of money from the defendant and had marked the original sale deed, which stood in the name of the defendant's brother's wife, as Ex.A5, to substantiate the case of the plaintiff that the original document was given as a security for the borrowing. He would further submit that under Order XIII Rule 9 of CPC, the plaintiff was entitled to seek return of the original document and the trial Court has erroneously proceeded to dismiss the application, citing the suit having been disposed of already. In support of his contention, he would also rely on the decision of this Court in S.Senthamarai Vs. J.Vijayakumaran and another , in CRP.(NPD).Nos.2746 & 2747 of 2013 dated 30.08.2013. He would pray for CRP.No.2103 of 2023 being allowed.

6.Per contra, Mrs.K.Sri Rudhra, learned counsel appearing for the defendant would submit that the trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application and when admittedly the original sale deed, which was in respect of a property belonging to the defendant's brother's wife and the plaintiff already having succeeded in obtaining a decree and also put it to execution, he cannot seek return of the document, which rightfully belonged to the defendant's brother's wife. She would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision.

7.In CRP.No.2103 of 2023, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that the defendant is an auto driver and his properties are exempt from attachment under Section 60 of CPC. She would further submit that an auto driver would fall within the definition of labourer, occurring in Section 60(1)(c) and therefore, the trial Court ought not to have allowed the execution petition. In this regard, she relied on the decision of this Court in S.Ramakrishnan Vs. P.Gurumoorthy in CRP.No.2231 of 2025 dated 07.07.2025.

8.In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/decree- holder would submit that the burden was on the defendant to establish that he is entitled to exemption under Section 60 and absolutely no acceptable evidence has been adduced, excepting Ex.R6 which also would not enure to his benefit, as it is a self serving document. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision.

9.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

10.Insofar as CRP.No.2103 of 2023, there is no dispute that the original of the sale deed in favour of the defendant's brother's wife has been marked by the plaintiff, during his chief examination, as Ex.A5.

11.Order XIII Rule 9 of CPC reads thus:

“9. Return of admitted documents.—(1) Any person, whether a party to the suit or not, desirous of receiving back any documents 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,—

(a) where the suit is one in which an appeal is not allowed, when the suit has been disposed of, and

(b) where the suit is one in which an appeal is allowed, when the Court is satisfied that the time for preferring an appeal has elapsed and that no appeal has been preferred or, if an appeal has been preferred, when the appeal has been disposed of:

[Provided that a document may be returned at any time earlier then that prescribed b