Karnataka High Court
S. Venkatappa By Lrs. vs D.N. Purushotham Rao on 5 July, 1996
Equivalent citations: ILR1996KAR3226, 1996(6)KARLJ161
Author: M.B. Vishwanath
Bench: M.B. Vishwanath
JUDGMENT M.B. Vishwanath, J.
1. Heard both Counsel. The defendant is the appellant in this case. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No. 1275/1970 on the file of the II Additional First Munsiff, Bangalore, for recovery of Rs. 5,000/- with interest, against the defendant.
2. The learned Munsiff, by his judgment dated 14.7.1975 decreed the suit. The defendant preferred the appeal R.A.No. 4/1986 on the file of the Principal City Civil Judge, Bangalore.
3. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the appeal. The appellant-defendant has filed the present appeal.
3. Both the Courts-below believed the evidence of the plaintiff-P.W.1 and the chit, Ex.P-9, in the suit. The chit Ex.P-9, on which both the Courts relied, was No. 1 admittedly filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint.
4. It is contended in this Court by the Learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant that Ex.P-9 chit is the suit document and it should have been produced along with the plaint in view of Order 7 Rule 14 of the C.P.C. Order 7 Rule 14(1) of the C.P.C. says:-
"14(1). Where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented, and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint."
It should be noted that Order 7 Rule 14(1) refers to a document on which the plaintiff 'sues'. It does not refer to a document on which the plaintiff relies. Order 7 Rules 14(1) refers to a suit document, a document on which the suit is based and not to a relevant document on which the plaintiff relies to prove his claim. It is abundantly clear from the plaint averments that the plaintiff did not base his suit claim on Ex.P-9. The plaintiff did not sue upon Ex.P-9. But he relied upon Ex.P-9 to prove his claim.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of opinion the Courts-below were not wrong in relying on Ex.P-9 chit, even though Ex.P-9 had not been produced along with the plaint.?
6. The appeal is dismissed. Each party shall bear his own costs in this appeal.