Madras High Court
M.Thavamani vs Sabanayagi Begam on 20 April, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MAD 416
Author: M.V.Muralidaran
Bench: M.V.Muralidaran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.04.2018 Reserved on : 09.04.2018 Pronounced on : 20.04.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN CRP(PD)(MD)No.1621 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.9152 of 2017 M.Thavamani .. Petitioner Vs. 1.Sabanayagi Begam 2.The Divisional Revenue Officer, Lathams Bunglow Road, Ramanathapuram. 3.The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Section, K.T.M. Building 1st Floor, Vandikaran Street, Ramanathapuram. 4.The District Collector, Sethupathi Nagar, Collectorate Complex Post, Ramanathapuram District. 5.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 493, Annasalai, Nanthanam, Chennai-35. .. Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Fair and decreetal order made in I.A.No.12 of 2017 in O.S.No.35 of 2013 dated 14.06.2017, on the file of the learned Additional District Court, Ramanathapuram. !For Petitioner : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu ^For Respondents : Mr.H.Lakshmishankar (for R1) M/s.VPM.Vaishnavi (for R2 and R4) Government Advocate Mr.R.Janarthanan (for R3 and R5) :ORDER
According to the petitioner while he was practicing as an Advocate at Ramanathapuram, conducted several Land Acquisition cases, with regard to the acquisition of Lands in Survey Nos.56/4, 56/5 and 56/5 measuring to an extent of 470.28 cent in Pattinamkathan Village for the benefit of Tamil Nadu Housing Unit, Ramanathapuram, the third respondent herein. After an award was passed by the second respondent herein, dispute arose between the 1st respondent and another 18 claimants/land owners with regard to the payment of professional fees to the petitioner. Whereupon the 1st respondent herein and 17 others sent a letter on 01.06.2010 stating that they have revoked their Vakalath and for which, the petitioner sent a suitable reply to the 1st respondent and others on 25.06.2010.
2.After exchange of notices, the petitioner has filed the civil suit in O.S.No.35 of 2013 before the learned Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram, and 13 suits as against the other claimants before the learned District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram, and 4 suits before the learned Sub -Court, Ramanathapuram, against the above said persons for realization of his professional fees. In the meantime O.S.No.35 of 2013 was transferred to the file of Additional District Court, Ramanathapurm on administrative ground and later at the instance of the petitioner, seeking joint trial, prayed to transfer the above 17 suits to the file of Additional District Judge, Ramanathapuram and the same were transferred by the Learned Principal District Judge.
3.While so, on 02.06.2017 the learned Additional District Judge, Ramanathapuram found that except O.S.No.35 of 2013 the other case bundles were not received. Later in pursuant to a communication by the Learned Judge, the remaining 17 case bundles were received by the Learned Additional District Judge. While so the Learned Judge directed the petitioner to conduct trial, despite the fact that the petitioner was unaware of the new numbers relating to the 17 suit which was transferred to the file of Additional District Judge, Ramanathapuram. Thereafter the case was adjourned to 14.06.2017.
4.Being so, on 14.06.2017 the petitioner filed an application under Order 7, Rule 14(1) of CPC in I.A.No.12 of 2017 to receive the additional documents namely an Award dated 03.04.1997, Conciliation Statement dated 31.10.2006 and 05.09.2007, File of Official Communication between the petitioner, 3rd and 5th respondent and Official Communication between petitioner, 3rd and 5th respondent. The said application came for hearing on 14.06.2017 and the learned Judge dismissed the petition, without even issuing any notice to the respondents and without valid reason, holding that the application is filed belatedly. Challenging the said Order of dismissal the present CRP is filed.
5.I heard Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.H.Lakshmishankar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, M/s.VPM.Vaishnavi, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 2 and 4 and Mr.R.Janarthanan, learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 5 and perused the entire records.
6.The Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has filed the application to receive documents at the time of commencement of trial and the same ought to have been received by giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to put forth his case, whereas the application was dismissed at the very threshold without even issuing notice to the other side. further the proof affidavit of the petitioner was made ready on 07.04.2015 and copy was served on the 1st respondent as early as on 18.06.2015 along with an application to receive additional documents and the same was about to be filed, however since the suit is transferred on administrative ground, the petitioner?s application was filed after transfer to the Additional District Judge, Ramanathapuram. Therefore there is no delay on his part. Moreover, the impugned order is a non-speaking one for want of reasons. Further the finding of the Learned Judge that there is no pleading with regard to the additional documents sought to be received is unsustainable and in fact it cannot be a ground to deny the documents.
7.The Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his case made reliance upon the following decisions of this Court made:
i)2011 (2) CTC 258 ( N. Subhash Chand JainVersus M/s. Uniply Industries Limited, Chennai) - That the Trial Court cannot refuse to accept the document when filed by the parties and when the documents are sought to be marked as evidence, the parties are at liberty to raise objection in accordance with law and the Court can consider the same at that stage.
ii)2014 (3) MWN Civil (328) Srinivasa Naicker Vs Kaliappan alias Kalipandi & Others ? That a document cannot be shunned from consideration merely because it has not been mentioned in Plaint.
8.Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that only on proper appreciation of law and fact, the petitioner?s application was rightly rejected by the Learned Judge and the petitioner is dragging on the proceeding. Thus the Court below having found that most of the documents are Photostat copy the Learned Judge rightly held that those documents are not liable to be received.
9.It is settled law that mere non- mentioning of the Document in plaint cannot be a ground to refuse its reception. On perusal of the impugned Order and the case records it is seen that the Learned Judge has dismissed the petitioner?s application filed under Order 7, Rule 14(1) C.P.C. on the same day instantaneously on presentation. This Court feels that the procedure adopted by the Court below is not proper. When the civil rights of parties are under peril the Court must avoid, deciding the application without putting notice on the opposite parties, even though such an order would ensure benefit on respondents. On the other hand, by issuing notice to the other side and after hearing them also an order could be passed, even adverse to the petitioner. Thus this Court is of the opinion that the learned judge ought not to have refused to receive the Documents put forth by the petitioner at the threshold by dismissing the same without issuing notice to the other side.
10.The learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that they have no objection to receive the original documents, subject to proof and relevance but with regard to the photocopy the same cannot be marked. The learned counsel for the petitioner also conceded the legal position with regard to the marking of the Photostat document. But he has submitted the other documents are in the custody of official respondents and liberty may be given to file an application for send for the documents from the Official Department. But the official respondents are represented by the Government Advocate and therefore this Court feels granting liberty and filing another application will only delay the proceedings. Therefore instead of filing any formal application in that regard the official respondents can produce the documents on summoning them by the petitioner directly by paying witness batta.
11.Thus the impugned order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set- aside and accordingly it is set-aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed on the following terms:-
[a] The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the Order and Decree made in I.A.No.12 of 2017 in O.S.No.35 of 2013 dated 14.06.2017, on the file of the learned Additional District Court, Ramanathapuram, is hereby set aside.
[b] The trial Court i.e the Transferee Court namely the Principal District Court at Ramanathapuram is directed to receive original documents filed by the petitioner and mark and decide the same subject to proof and relevance. [c] In as much as the documents filed as Xerox copies, pertaining to the so called Communication between the petitioner and the respondent officials 2 to 5, the respondents 2 to 5, being the Public authorities and the documents sought for to be marked remain public documents, they are directed to produce the copy of the document relied on by the petitioner before the Trial Court, so as to verify its veracity and contents.
[d] The Trial Court is directed to send witness summon on filing necessary batta by the petitioner to the official respondents, without formal application and on production of the documents the same can be decided, subject to relevance.
[e] The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.
To The Additional District Court, Ramanathapuram.
.