IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.12.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.R.P.(P.D) No.4055 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 P.Stanley Buck .. Petitioner -vs- Dr.V.Ramachandran .. Respondent This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and final order dated 17.9.2008 made in I.A.No.216 of 2008 in O.S.No.24 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court(Fast Track Court 2) Coimbatore. For Petitioner : : Mr.S.Mukunth O R D E R
The revision petitioner/respondent/defendant has filed this present civil revision petition as against the order dated 17.9.2008 in I.A.No.216 of 2008 in O.S.No.24 of 2006 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court No.2) Coimbatore in allowing the application filed by the respondent/petitioner/plaintiff under Order 14 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code to condone the delay of filing the documents mentioned thereto.
2.The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.216 of 2008 in O.S.No.24 of 2006 has inter alia opined that ‘the respondent/defendant would not in any way be prejudiced, but the denial of such permission would deprive the right of the petitioner/plaintiff to substantiate this case’ and has resultantly allowed the said application.
3.According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/respondent/defendant, the trial Court has taken a long time in deciding the application I.A.No.216 of 2008 and that the said application has been adjourned for clarification on several dates with the result there has been a change in the Presiding Officer of the Court and since the incumbent without even hearing the parties had chosen to decide the application within a day and that the trial Court has not exercised its discretion properly in deciding the application and therefore prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice.
4.In the affidavit filed in support of the application I.A.No.216 of 2008 filed by the respondent/petitioner/plaintiff, it is inter alia averred that ‘the revision petitioner/respondent/defendant had executed three promissory notes in his favour and that the documents are very essential to prove his claim and therefore prays for condoning the delay in filing the documents more particularly described in the list mentioned thereto.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ respondent/ defendant submits that as per Order 7 Rule 14 Sub Clause (3) of Civil Procedure Code ‘ A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added and annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf of the hearing of the suit’ and in the present case in the affidavit in I.A.No.216 of 2008, the respondent/petitioner /plaintiff has not shown sufficient and good cause to establish his case for allowing the application and therefore, the order of the trial Court is not correct in the eye of law.
6. It is pertinent to point out that the revision petitioner/respondent/defendant has filed a counter to I. A.No.216 of 2008 before the trial Court inter alia stating that the promissory note dated 12.12.1989 for Rs.1,00,000/- is not admissible in evidence and the purported signature of the revision petitioner is found only in on one 20 paise stamp and the other 20 paise stamp has not been properly cancelled and that the truth and genuineness of the documents sought to be produced are denied by the revision petitioner and further that the said promissory notes are barred by limitation.
7. It cannot be gain said that a reading of Order 13 Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code shows that the litigants or their counsel are required to produce all the documentary evidence in their possession or power which they intend to rely on to establish their right along with the pleadings before framing of necessary issues. However, if a sufficient and good cause is shown, then the Court of law has got wide discretion and power to allow the application filed by a party praying for condonation of delay in regard to the filing of documents and the principle good or sufficient cause will however depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this connection, it cannot be forgotten that the words’ sufficient cause’ must be liberally used to secure the ends of justice. As a matter of fact, Order 13 Rule 2 of CPC, does not preclude a party to file the document at a later stage, of course with the permission or leave of the Court. The permission to produce the document at a later point of time is purely within the domain of the Court.
8. On going through the order passed by the trial Court, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has exercised its discretion in a proper way and in short, the order of the trial Court in allowing the application I.A.No.216 of 2008 does not suffer from any serious infirmity or patent illegality in the eye of law and in that view of the matter, this revision fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
9. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.216 of 2008 in O.S.No.24 of 2006 is hereby affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this revision. The trial Court shall proceed with the conduct of the trial of the case dispassionately ,uninfluenced with any of the observation made by this Court in this revision. It is made clear that the revision petitioner/respondent/defendant is at liberty to take all factual and legal contentions before the trial Court in the main case. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed.
10.12.2008
Index:Yes
Internet:yes
sg
To the Additional District & Sessions Court(FTC-2) Coimbatore
M.VENUGOPAL,J
sg
CRP.PD.NO.4055/2008
10.12.2008