Secondary evidence admissible via CBI seizure receipt despite absent plaint pleadings, no prejudice to defendants.

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and final order, dated 18.11.2019 passed in I.A.No.222 of 2019 in O.S.No.182 of

2017 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Coonoor.

2. Mr.P.Suresh Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that in a suit, filed for recovery of money, by the respondent/plaintiff, an application to receive an additional document, was filed and the same, without being considered on merits, had been, in a casual manner, allowed by the Trial Court. He submits that the suit has been filed on strength of documents which are not in custody of the respondent/plaintiff bank and the same was not whispered to by the respondent/plaintiff in his plaint. Only certified copies of the documents have been marked and an attempt had been made to mark the receipt issued by the C.B.I which, according to the respondent/plaintiff, was a document which would substantiate that the original documents, for which certified documents were marked, are in the custody of the C.B.I. He submits that having not whispered anything of the document not being available with the respondent/plaintiff bank in the plaint, the respondent/plaintiff cannot be allowed to bring about a new document for substantiating the necessity to mark secondary evidence. He submits that the Court below, according to him, had not dealt with the merits of the application and had allowed the application. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court.

3. Countering his arguments, Mr.M.L.Ganesh, learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the entire transaction, including various other transactions, was subject matter of the investigation by the C.B.I. A fraud had been perpetrated in disbursal of the loan. In the course of the investigation, the documents were all seized by the investigating authority, for which, receipts have been issued and to substantiate the marking of secondary evidence, the receipt that has been issued by the C.B.I is sought to be introduced. He submits that the introduction of the said documents would in no manner prejudice the petitioners/defendants as they have not specifically denied the benefits that were extended to by the respondent/plaintiff bank, but, had only agitated the suit as being hit by law of limitation and that the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled for the interest as claimed in the plaint. Hence, he submits that there is no necessity for this Court to interfere with the impugned order and he prays the Court to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

4. I have considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners/defendants as well as the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff and had perused the materials available on record before this Court.

5. It is the claim of the petitioners/defendants that the said receipt itself would indicate that the documents have been impounded by the investigating authority and the plaint itself, based upon such documents, would not be maintainable and it is an attempt to fill up lacuna in respect of the secondary evidence which cannot be allowed to be done during the course of trial. According to them, when there has been no pleading in the plaint in respect of the document that is sought to be introduced, the said document could not be taken on record by the Court below. It is to be noted that a written statement had been filed by the third petitioner/defendant and had been adopted by the first petitioner/defendant. On a perusal of the written statement, it would be seen that there has been only a blanket denial of the averments without any specific pleading with regard to the documents that have been executed. Du