Madras High Court
S.Karthikeyan vs M/S.Sapphire Benefit Fund Limited on 21 April, 2016
Author: P.R.Shivakumar
Bench: P.R.Shivakumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 21.04.2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR C.R.P.[PD] No.1262 of 2016 & C.M.P.No.6975 of 2016 1.S.Karthikeyan 2.S.Alamelu ... Petitioners Vs M/s.Sapphire Benefit Fund Limited Rep by its Secretary Mr.A.Shanmugam S/o. Late R.A.N.M.Arunachalam No.33-B, Easwaran Kovil Street Erode Erode District ... Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair order and decree dated 14.12.2015 in I.A.No.578 of 2015 in O.S.No.46 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Nandhakumar For Respondent : No Appearance O R D E R
The defendants in O.S.No.46 of 2013 pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam are the petitioners in the present revision. The suit was filed by the respondent herein for recovery of money based on promissory notes.
2. The revision petitioners/defendants, after filing their written statement, chose to file an application 1 = years after the filing of the suit in I.A.No.578 of 2015 purportedly under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC praying for a direction to the plaintiff to produce original receipt books of the plaintiff for the period from 01.01.2003 to 25.07.2012, Income Tax return of the plaintiff for the years 2003 to 2013 and the original authorization letter given to the plaintiff's Secretary A.Shanmugam. The application was opposed by the plaintiff and the learned trial Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the said application by an order dated 14.12.2015. The said order is sought to be challenged in this revision preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. The matter stands listed today for admission. The arguments of Mr.M.Nandhakumar, learned counsel for the petitioners are heard. The certified copy of the impugned order and copies of the other documents produced in the form of typed-set of papers are also perused.
4. Filing of the petition under Order XII Rule 8 CPC shows that there is something wrong on the part of the counsel appearing for the petitioners herein in the proceedings pending before the lower Court. Order XII Rule 8 CPC contemplates only a service of notice on the opposite party to produce certain documents. It does not authorize or enable the party to file an application before the Court seeking a direction to the opposite party to produce the documents, which the applicants wants their opponent to produce. The proper course to be adopted shall be to issue a notice under the said provision which prescribes the format found in Form 12 of Appendix C. A reading of the provision and the form will make it clear that on a misunderstanding of the provision, the application came to be filed before the Court below.
5. However, an attempt has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court that the application was intended to be filed under Rule 14 of Order XI CPC, but by mistake a wrong provision came to be cited. The said submission has been made in an attempt to contend that citing a wrong provision alone shall not be the ground on which the party can be denied the relief and in appropriate cases, the Court can treat the application to be one under the appropriate provision and grant the relief. But a consideration of the entire Order XI and the rules thereunder will make it clear that the above said attempt made by the learned counsel for the petitioners also does not succeed as the said contention has got to be discountenanced. Order XI proceeds from Rule 1 dealing with Discovery by interrogatories, Rule 2 containing particulars of interrogatories to be submitted, Rule 3 referring to Costs of interrogatories, Rule 4 prescribing Form of interrogatories, Rule 6 dealing with Objections to interrogatories by answer, Rule 7 containing setting aside and striking out interrogatories, Rule 8 containing Affidavit in answer to the interrogatories, Rule 9 referring to Form of affidavit in answer and so on. Rule 12 deals with Application for discovery of documents. It enables a party to apply to the Court to direct the opposite party to make discovery, on Oath, of the documents which are or have been in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question therein. Rule 13 deals with affidavit of such party who is directed to make discovery on Oath of documents. Rule 14 deals with Power of the Court to direct the party having made such discovery to produce those documents.
6. A reading of the said provisions will make it clear that only those documents discovered under Order XI can be directed to be produced under Rule 14 of Order XI. Order XII Rule 8 CPC simply deals with the service of notice requiring production of any document in the hands of the opposite party. Without adopting proper procedure, the petitioner seems to have wasted the time of trial Court by filing I.A.No.578 of 2015 and that of this Court by filing this Civil Revision Petition. There is no merit in the revision and the same deserves to be dismissed. Though it is a fit case for awarding cost, since this Court decides to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition at the stage of admission itself, taking a lenient view and accepting the plea made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court refrains itself from passing any order regarding cost.
In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.04.2016 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes gpa P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J.
gpa To The Subordinate Judge Gobichettipalayam C.R.P.[PD] No.1262 of 2016 & C.M.P.No.6975 of 2016 21.04.2016