Documents marked in prior interlocutory application can be received at trial without fresh leave under Order VII Rule 14 CPC if relevant.

COMMON ORDER

Challenging the impugned order passed in IA.No.9/2025 in OS.No. 8746 of 2022, IA No. 8 of 2025 in OS No. 9097 of 2022 and IA No.9 of 2025 in OS No.8747 of 2022, respectively dated 03.02.2026 on the file of the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the defendants 1 and 3 have preferred these revisions.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that before the trial Court, the plaintiff marked Exhibits A2 and A3, which were not enclosed along with the plaint at the time of filing the suit, nor was any permission sought to produce those additional documents. Without such permission, the documents were marked as Exhibits A2 and A3. Hence, he filed an application to de-mark those documents, which was not considered by the learned trial Judge, and therefore this revision has been preferred.

3. The learned counsel further argued that as per Order VII Rule 14 CPC, if any document is in the custody of the plaintiff, it must be produced along with the plaint at the time of filing the suit. Otherwise, leave of the Court must be obtained to produce such documents. In the present case, without obtaining leave, the plaintiff produced the documents along with the proof affidavit of PW1 and had them marked as Exhibits A2 and A3. Such an erroneous procedure adopted by the learned trial Judge is liable to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the leave to defend application filed by the revision petitioner in I.A. No.2 of 2023, these documents were already marked as Exhibits A2 and A3. Since the documents were already produced and marked before the Court, the trial Court was entitled to receive them at the time of PW1’s proof affidavit. Therefore, the dismissal of the application requires no interference.

5. Considering the submissions on both sides and upon perusal of the records, it is seen that the revision petitioners had filed I.A. No.2 of 2023 seeking leave to defend, and in that application, the documents were marked as Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 on the side of the plaintiff (who is the respondent in that application).

6. It is further seen that the revision petitioners raised objections by filing a memo to receive those documents. Upon considering the objections, the learned trial Judge permitted the marking of those documents. This also reveals that during the enquiry in I.A. No.2 of 2023, the learned trial Judge, after considering the objections, permitted the marking of those documents. The documents in question are the plaintiff’s bank statement and Form 26AS (Income Tax Department statement), which, according to the plaintiff, corroborate the plaint averments.

7. Considering that the suit pertains to a money claim between the parties, the production of the plaintiff’s bank statement and IT particulars is relevant to establish the source of income. These are not new or irrelevant documents. Though objections were raised by the defendants at the time of the leave to defend application in I.A. No.2 of 2023, the documents were received.

Therefore, the order requires no interference.

8. Liberty is granted to the defendants to file an additional written statement and to cross-examine PW1 in that regard within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Now, the evidence is closed. Therefore, the defendants are permitted to adduce evidence.

9. In CRP Nos. 1868 of 2026 & 1693 of 2026, the defendants partly cross-examined PW1 and thereafter failed to continue the proceedings. Consequently, he was set ex parte and the matters were posted for arguments. The trial Court is directed to give one more opportunity by reopening the case and permitting the defendants to cross-examine PW1 with regard to Exhib