Madras High Court
Ambal V.Mani vs K.Arumugham on 7 January, 2009
Equivalent citations: AIR 2009 (NOC) 2361 (MAD)
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:07.01.2009 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(PD).2570 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 Ambal V.Mani ... Petitioner vs. K.Arumugham ... Respondent This civil revision petition is preferred against the order dated 03.12.2007 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram in I.A.No.946 of 2007 in O.S.No.154 of 2001. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ramanujam For Respondent : Mr.M.A.Abdul Wahab ORDER
Animadverting upon the order dated 03.12.2007 passed by the learned by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram in I.A.No.946 of 2007 in O.S.No.154 of 2001, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. Heard both sides.
3. A "resume" of facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:
The revision petitioner is the defendant. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.154 of 2001 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram for recovery of money based on pro-note. The petitioner/defendant filed the written statement even in the year 2004, but without enclosing documents. However after closing of the plaintiff's side, the defendant while entering upon his defence, filed I.A.No.946 of 2007 for reception of the following documents:
(i) 15.03.1995 - Deposit receipt Rs.6,000/-
given in favour of M.Hariharan by Sri Astalakshmi Finance Corporation, Kancheepuram
(ii) 24.05.1997 Receipt given by Sri Sathiyanarayana Rice Mill, Sirukaveripakkam, Kancheepuram (5 in Nos.)
(iii) 01.08.1997 Monthly chit intimation receipt 15 in Nos.
(iv) 11.11.1997 - Monthly chit intimation receipt 21 in Nos.
(v) 26.09.1997 - Xerox copy of notice issued by Sri Adhilakshmi Finance Corporation, Kancheepuram Through Advocate whereas the Court dismissed the said application vide order dated 03.12.2007. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed on various grounds.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would develop his argument to the effect that the documents sought to be filed by the defendant were all prepared and issued by the plaintiff himself in connection with chit transaction, which existed between them; however during cross examination, the plaintiff disowned his own documents and if opportunity is given to the defendants to file those documents before the lower Court, he would get those documents verified by the handwriting expert and also could prove his case that the handwritings found in those documents are that of the plaintiff and ultimately that would expose the falsity of the plaintiff's case.
5. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would vehemently oppose the contention of the petitioner/defendant to the effect that all those documents are unauthentic and unsigned documents and if such kind of documents are allowed to be filed in Civil Courts, then nobody would be safe.
6. A bare perusal of the list of documents would reveal that those are all unauthentic documents and admittedly they do not bear any signature and they are not public documents also. Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure envisages that at the time of filing the written statement itself, necessary documents should be filed. Even de hors such an embargo, the Court for the purpose of rendering justice could entertain documents, but such documents should be capable of being relied on by the Court in adjudicating the lis. Even assuming that those documents are allowed to be filed in Court, it is highly doubtful whether the Court could render its judgment placing reliance on those unsigned documents. However, the revision petitioner is at liberty to adduce oral evidence relating to the alleged chit transaction and the discharging of the same and also his entire case about the alleged falsity of the plaintiff's contention in the plaint.
7. The order of the lower Court would reveal that adverting to the relevant nature of the documents it exercised its discretion, which warrants no interference also.
8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would cite the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1158 (Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat and another). Certain excerpts from it would run thus:
"13. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the Court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.)
14. The above procedure, if followed, will have two advantages. First is that the time in the trial court, during evidence-taking stage, would not be wasted on account of raising such objections and the court can continue to examine the witnesses. The witnesses need not wait for long hours, if not days. Second is that the superior court, when the same objection is recanvassed and reconsidered in appeal or revision against the final judgment of the trial court, can determine the correctness of the view taken by the trial court regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to the trial court again for fresh disposal. We may also point out that this measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation and would not add to their misery or expenses."
The learned counsel for the revision petitioner by drawing the attention of this Court to the above excerpts would develop his arguments to the effect that, if opportunity is given to the petitioner to file those documents, certainly he would be able to probabilise his evidence as otherwise mere adducing of oral evidence might fail to carry conviction with the trial Court.
9. I would like to highlight here that if clinching oral evidence is adduced, it is for the Court to consider it and there is no embargo legally relating to such oral evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. However, if the petitioner wants to peruse the accounts of the plaintiff, it is open for him to take out necessary application for the same. As such, the documents which are sought to be filed, in my considered opinion, are not capable of being treated as an evidence at all before the Civil Court. Wherefore, I could see no merit in the revision and accordingly with the above observation, this revision is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent would make an extempore submission to the effect that a time frame may be fixed for disposal, as the suit is of the year 2001. Hence, in these circumstances, the lower Court shall do well to see that the suit is disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
vj2 07.01.2009 Index :Yes Internet:Yes To The Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram G.RAJASURIA,J vj2 C.R.P.(PD).2570 of 2008 07.01.2009