Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Return of Documents under Order XIII Rule 9 - The rule allows parties to retrieve their original documents after the suit's disposal, even if they were not the ones who produced them. The documents can be returned either upon application or by right once the case concludes, provided they are not impounded under Rule 8. The rule emphasizes that admitted documents should generally be returned to the producing party, but courts should interpret this broadly, considering the broader purpose of the rule, rather than rigidly applying literal language. R. Shankar, S/o. R. Prabhakar VS E. Rammohan Chowdary, S/o. E. Yerrappa - Karnataka, R. Shankar S/o. R. Prabhakar VS E. Rammohan Chowdary S/o. E. Yerrappa - Current Civil Cases, Dr.Vasantha Rajamanickam vs Indira Devaraj Bhat - Madras, Bhavsing (died per LRs) vs Namratha - Telangana, S.Kannappan vs Esakkiammai - Madras, B.MUTHUPANDI vs THE MADURAI CITY MUNICIPAL C - Madras, Shri. Bijit Kumar Banik VS Kalyani Deb - Tripura
Procedure for Seeking Return Without Application - While traditionally a party must apply for the return of documents, courts have recognized that in certain circumstances, documents can be returned as a matter of right after case disposal, especially if the documents are not impounded and the suit is over. Some cases indicate that parties can approach the court directly or rely on procedural provisions like substitution with certified copies to facilitate return, without a formal application. R. Shankar, S/o. R. Prabhakar VS E. Rammohan Chowdary, S/o. E. Yerrappa - Karnataka, Dr.Vasantha Rajamanickam vs Indira Devaraj Bhat - Madras, S.Kannappan vs Esakkiammai - Madras, Shri. Bijit Kumar Banik VS Kalyani Deb - Tripura
Court’s Discretion and Procedure - Courts have the discretion to order the return of documents, often upon application, and may require substitution with certified copies. The process involves comparing originals with copies and ensuring proper notice. In some cases, courts have dismissed applications or refused to return documents without specific applications, emphasizing procedural correctness. The courts also recognize that documents not admitted or not filed as evidence are subject to different procedures. E.Mohanasundari vs V.Periyar Brain - Madras, V.KAMALAKANNAN vs L.DURAISAMY - Madras, Sampurna Builders vs A.Kiran Kumar, S/O A.Phaniraj - Karnataka
Practical Considerations - The right to claim return accrues after the suit's disposal, and courts generally favor returning documents to the rightful owner, especially when no appeal is pending. The process may involve substitution, and courts may set specific timeframes for disposal of such applications. The courts also highlight that documents filed in the suit can be returned either through formal applications or as a matter of course after case closure, provided procedural requirements are met. Dr.Vasantha Rajamanickam vs Indira Devaraj Bhat - Madras, Shri. Bijit Kumar Banik VS Kalyani Deb - Tripura
Analysis and Conclusion:Order XIII Rule 9 of CPC primarily facilitates the return of admitted documents post-suit, either upon application or as a right after disposal, with courts exercising discretion to ensure procedural fairness. Parties seeking to retrieve documents without formal application should demonstrate readiness to substitute originals with certified copies and adhere to procedural norms. Courts emphasize broad interpretation of the rule’s intent, prioritizing the rightful ownership and procedural correctness over rigid formalities. Therefore, to obtain a return of documents without an application, parties should ensure the suit's disposal, readiness to substitute documents, and compliance with court procedures.
In civil litigation in India, documents play a pivotal role. Once admitted as evidence, parties often worry about retrieving their originals after the case concludes. A common query arises: How to Get Order Xiii Rule 9 Return of Documents Without Application? This blog post demystifies Order XIII Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, explaining when and how courts can return admitted documents without requiring a formal application from the parties.
We'll cover the rule's overview, conditions, step-by-step procedures, relevant provisions, insights from judicial precedents, and practical tips. Note that while this provides general guidance, it is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific case.
Order XIII of the CPC governs the production, impounding, and return of documents in civil suits. Specifically, Order XIII Rule 9 addresses the return of documents that have been produced and placed on record. It states that any person—whether a party or not—desirous of receiving back any document produced by them shall, unless the document is impounded under Rule 8, be entitled to receive back the same under certain timelines. Fr. Paulose Thomas VS Skaria Thomas, S/O. Late Thomas - 2017 Supreme(Ker) 1066 - 2017 0 Supreme(Ker) 1066
Order XIII, Rule 9 of the Code deals with return of admitted documents. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 9, 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... Fr. Paulose Thomas VS Skaria Thomas, S/O. Late Thomas - 2017 Supreme(Ker) 1066 - 2017 0 Supreme(Ker) 1066
The rule balances the court's need to retain documents during proceedings with the owner's right to reclaim originals post-disposal, typically without rigid formalities if conditions are met. Courts interpret this broadly to favor return to the rightful owner, prioritizing the rule's purpose over literal constraints. R. Shankar, S/o. R. Prabhakar VS E. Rammohan Chowdary, S/o. E. Yerrappa - KarnatakaR. Shankar S/o. R. Prabhakar VS E. Rammohan Chowdary S/o. E. Yerrappa - Current Civil CasesDr.Vasantha Rajamanickam vs Indira Devaraj Bhat - Madras
Not every document qualifies for automatic or application-free return. Here are the primary conditions:
Documents Must Be Admitted in Evidence: Only those formally admitted during proceedings under Order XIII are eligible. Originals must have been produced at or before the settlement of issues, as per Order XIII Rule 1. Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues:- (1) The parties or their pleader shall produce on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original... Badrinarayan Gaurishankar Palasaniya Deceased Through His L Rs VS Omprakash Sitaram Agrawal - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 2248 - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 2248Badrinarayan Gaurishankar Palasaniya VS Omprakash Sitaram Agrawal - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 2548 - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 2548
Suit Disposal and No Appeal: Return is generally available when the suit is disposed of, especially if no appeal lies. For appealable suits, it may occur after the appeal period expires.
Not Impounded: Documents impounded under Rule 8 (e.g., for suspected forgery) cannot be returned until the court releases them.
No Ongoing Need: The court must deem the documents unnecessary for further proceedings. LAKSHMI VS CHINNAMMAL @ RAYYAMMAL - Uttarakhand (2009)Lakshmi VS Chinnammal @ Rayyammal - Madhya Pradesh (2009)
If these are satisfied, return may occur without a formal application, as a matter of course or right post-disposal. R. Shankar, S/o. R. Prabhakar VS E. Rammohan Chowdary, S/o. E. Yerrappa - KarnatakaDr.Vasantha Rajamanickam vs Indira Devaraj Bhat - Madras
While a formal application is traditional, courts may return documents without one in straightforward cases. Here's the typical process:
Verify Admission Status: Confirm the documents were marked and admitted. Check court records or orders.
Post-Disposal Approach: After suit disposal (decree or dismissal), approach the court clerk or bench, citing Rule 9. No separate application needed if the court agrees they're no longer required. Lakshmi VS Chinnammal @ Rayyammal - Supreme Court (2009)
Substitution with Certified Copies: Courts often require replacing originals with certified/photostat copies for record. Compare originals with copies in open court. E.Mohanasundari vs V.Periyar Brain - MadrasV.KAMALAKANNAN vs L.DURAISAMY - Madras
Court's Discretion: The judge exercises discretion, ensuring notice to other parties and no prejudice. If unnecessary, return follows promptly. Lakshmi VS Chinnammal @ Rayyammal - Rajasthan (2009)T. Vigneswaran VS Buvaneswari Housing Land Developers - Madras (2013)
Timeline: Parties may claim return as a right after disposal, with courts favoring quick disposal of such requests. Dr.Vasantha Rajamanickam vs Indira Devaraj Bhat - MadrasShri. Bijit Kumar Banik VS Kalyani Deb - Tripura
Practical Tip: Prepare certified copies in advance. Some courts return documents as a matter of right post-closure without application, especially non-impounded admitted ones. R. Shankar, S/o. R. Prabhakar VS E. Rammohan Chowdary, S/o. E. Yerrappa - KarnatakaS.Kannappan vs Esakkiammai - Madras
Courts hold significant discretion but lean towards return to avoid hardship. For instance:
Broad Interpretation: The rule emphasizes that admitted documents should generally be returned to the producing party, but courts should interpret this broadly... R. Shankar S/o. R. Prabhakar VS E. Rammohan Chowdary S/o. E. Yerrappa - Current Civil CasesBhavsing (died per LRs) vs Namratha - Telangana
No Rigid Formalities: In certain scenarios, direct requests suffice without applications, particularly after case end. However, if contested, a formal application under Rule 9 may be directed. B.MUTHUPANDI vs THE MADURAI CITY MUNICIPAL C - MadrasShri. Bijit Kumar Banik VS Kalyani Deb - Tripura
Refusals Rare: Denials occur if documents are needed for appeals or not properly substituted. Courts stress procedural fairness. Sampurna Builders vs A.Kiran Kumar, S/O A.Phaniraj - Karnataka
Related rules bolster this:
Order XIII Rule 1: Foundation for production. Badrinarayan Gaurishankar Palasaniya VS Omprakash Sitaram Agrawal - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 2548 - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 2548
Order XIII Rule 10: Court can summon records, aiding verification. Lakshmi VS Chinnammal @ Rayyammal - Madhya Pradesh (2009)
Who Can Claim?: Any producer, even non-parties.
Third-Party Documents: Possible return to owners post-suit.
Delays: Pending appeals block return; monitor limitation periods.
Costs: Minimal if no application; certified copies may incur fees.
Challenges include court backlogs or oversights, so proactive follow-up helps. Courts generally favor owners, setting timeframes for applications if needed. Dr.Vasantha Rajamanickam vs Indira Devaraj Bhat - Madras
Under Order XIII Rule 9 CPC, retrieving admitted documents without a formal application is feasible post-suit disposal, provided they're not impounded, substituted if required, and deemed unnecessary by the court. The process hinges on judicial discretion but aligns with the rule's intent for efficient document handling.
Key Takeaways:- Ensure admission and suit closure.- Prepare certified copies.- Approach court directly citing Rule 9.- Leverage broad judicial interpretations.
This is general information based on CPC and precedents; outcomes vary by facts and court. Always seek tailored legal counsel to navigate your case effectively.
References:- LAKSHMI VS CHINNAMMAL @ RAYYAMMAL - Uttarakhand (2009)Lakshmi VS Chinnammal @ Rayyammal - Madhya Pradesh (2009)Lakshmi VS Chinnammal @ Rayyammal - Supreme Court (2009)Lakshmi VS Chinnammal @ Rayyammal - Rajasthan (2009)T. Vigneswaran VS Buvaneswari Housing Land Developers - Madras (2013)Badrinarayan Gaurishankar Palasaniya Deceased Through His L Rs VS Omprakash Sitaram Agrawal - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 2248 - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 2248Badrinarayan Gaurishankar Palasaniya VS Omprakash Sitaram Agrawal - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 2548 - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 2548Fr. Paulose Thomas VS Skaria Thomas, S/O. Late Thomas - 2017 Supreme(Ker) 1066 - 2017 0 Supreme(Ker) 1066R. Shankar, S/o. R. Prabhakar VS E. Rammohan Chowdary, S/o. E. Yerrappa - KarnatakaR. Shankar S/o. R. Prabhakar VS E. Rammohan Chowdary S/o. E. Yerrappa - Current Civil CasesDr.Vasantha Rajamanickam vs Indira Devaraj Bhat - MadrasBhavsing (died per LRs) vs Namratha - TelanganaS.Kannappan vs Esakkiammai - MadrasB.MUTHUPANDI vs THE MADURAI CITY MUNICIPAL C - MadrasShri. Bijit Kumar Banik VS Kalyani Deb - TripuraE.Mohanasundari vs V.Periyar Brain - MadrasV.KAMALAKANNAN vs L.DURAISAMY - MadrasSampurna Builders vs A.Kiran Kumar, S/O A.Phaniraj - Karnataka
#OrderXIIIRule9, #CPCDocuments, #LegalIndia
Though Order XIII Rule 9 of CPC contemplates that admitted documents shall be returned to the party who produced them, this does not bar a party from seeking the return of original documents even if they were not produced by such party. ... In this case, the Trial Court's decision to withhold the documents from the petitioner based solely on the fact t....
Though Order XIII Rule 9 of CPC contemplates that admitted documents shall be returned to the party who produced them, this does not bar a party from seeking the return of original documents even if they were not produced by such party. ... In this case, the Trial Court’s decision to withhold the documents from the petitioner based solely on the fact t....
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 ... The learned counsel for the applicant /plainti....
Further, sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order VII empowers the Court to give permission or leave to the plaintiff to produce documents at a subsequent stage of hearing of the suit. Order XIII Rule 1 and Order VII Rule 14 (3) have to be read together harmoniously. ... Non-mentioning of the documents sought to be produced ....
The first defendant filed an application under Order XIII Rules 8 and 9, Order XXII Rule 10, and Section 151 of C.P.C. , r/w Section 55 of T.P. ... In order to get return of the said documents, the revision petitioner has moved an application in unnumbered R.P. SR. No. 4130/4 in O.S. ... I do not ....
As per Order XIII, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the petitioner is entitled to get back the admitted documents marked in the suit and since there is no appeal preferred, the petitioner is entitled to get back the documents marked on its side as Exhibits A.1 to A.8. ... Thereafter, the revision petitioner has filed an application#H....
Order XIII CPC relates to the procedure for the production, impounding and return of documents. Rule 1 talks about the production of the original documents at or before the settlement of issues. ... Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that most times, the procedure contemplated under Order XIII Rule 9 of ....
No.XIII filed by the defendant No.9 under Order XVI Rule 1 and 6 of CPC is hereby allowed in part. ... Point No.2 : Accordingly, I pass the following; ORDER The I.A. No.XIV filed by the defendant No.9 under Order XVI Rule 1 and 6 of CPC No.9 is hereby dismissed. ... The applications are preferred under Order XVI #HL_....
Thus, right to claim the documents in this suit accrues just after the disposal of this suit as this court cannot impound the mentioned documents under Rule 8 of Order XIII. ... As per Order XIII Rule IX of CPC the parties to the suit are entitled to get back their documents submitted in the suit where the suit is ....
A perusal of the impugned order would show that an application for return of documents in terms of Order XIII Rule 9 has been kept pending for the past one year. ... Under Order XIII Rule 9, a party has the right to get back his documents which h....
(2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced: Order XIII Rule 1 reads as under :- "ORDER XIII : Production, Impounding and Return of Documents. 1. Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues :- (1) The parties or their pleader shall produce on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original where the copies thereof have been filed along with plaint or written statement. Order XIII Rule 1(3) prescribes that t....
(2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced: Order XIII Rule 1(3) prescribes that the mandate under Rule 1(1) and 1(2) would not apply to documents, which are produced for cross examination of the witness of the other party or handed over to the witness merely to refresh his memory. 1. Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues:- (1) The parties or their pleader shall produce on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original ....
8. Order XIII, Rule 9 of the Code deals with return of admitted documents. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 9, 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, where the suit is one in which an appeal is not allowed, when the suit has been disposed of; and where the suit is one in which an appeal is ....
Rule 10 empowers the Court to send papers from its own records or from other courts. Rule 1 of the said Order mandates production of original documents by the parties at or before the settlement of issues. Rule 9 of the Order XIII provides for return of admitted documents.
Rule 9 of the Order XIII provides for return of admitted documents. Rule 10 empowers the Court to send papers from its own records or from other courts. Rule 1 of the said Order mandates production of original docu-ments by the parties at or before the settlement of issues.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
