Return of plaint before registering a case - to file the original document - failing which it would be treated as rejection of plain - their Lordships of High court of A.P. held that The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, referred to hereinabove, make it clear that a plaintiff who fails to produce a document or mention it in the list of documents appended to the plaint, only runs the risk of having such documentary evidence excluded unless he obtains the leave of the Court thereafter. Further, originals of the photocopies of documents filed along with the plaint can, in any event, be produced at or before settlement of the issues. In that view of the matter, the order under revision is unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside - 2015 A.P.msklawreports




The subject suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum
of Rs.22,13,000/- from the defendants with interest and costs. His
claim was based on an alleged agreement of sale dated 08.12.2012, 
where under he claimed to have paid them advances, and the cheque  
dated 22.09.2014, allegedly issued by the second defendant towards
part-refund. 
The office appears to have raised an objection requiring
the plaintiff to file the original cheque.

It is not in dispute that the plaintiff filed photocopies of the
subject cheque and agreement dated 22.07.2014 along with the 
plaint. 
The trial Court however observed that it would have been
more appropriate for the plaintiff to indicate the whereabouts of the
originals of these documents in the plaint and explain his difficulty
in producing them. 
The trial Court concluded that return of the
plaint in these circumstances could not be taken to be rejection
thereof and that the objection raised by the office could not be
deemed improper. 
The trial Court therefore held that the plaintiff
should produce the original cheque dated 22.09.2014 and an
authenticated copy of the agreement dated 22.07.2014, failing
which the plaint was liable to be rejected.

This Court held that the trial
Court cannot, at the scrutiny stage, insist on the plaintiff to file the
documents, which, in its opinion are relevant for granting relief.

 this           
Court observed that at the stage of presentation of the suit, the trial
Court can only insist on strict compliance with the provisions of the
Code and reject the plaint only if it is satisfied that one or more of
the grounds mentioned in Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code are present.
This Court further observed that it is not the function of the trial
Court to involve itself in examination of a purported discrepancy in
a minute manner and reject the plaint on such ground at the
threshold as such a procedure is not sanctioned by law.
      In the light of the aforestated legal position, the approach of
the trial Court in examining the merits of the suit claim on the
strength of the photocopies placed before it and requiring the
plaintiff to produce the originals thereof as a condition precedent for
registration of the suit was erroneous in law.
 The provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, referred to hereinabove, make it clear
that a plaintiff who fails to produce a document or mention it in the
list of documents appended to the plaint, only runs the risk of
having such documentary evidence excluded unless he obtains the 
leave of the Court thereafter. 
Further, originals of the photocopies of
documents filed along with the plaint can, in any event, be produced
at or before settlement of the issues.
      In that view of the matter, the order under revision is
unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. The trial Court is
directed to entertain the subject suit and register the same if it is
otherwise found to be in order.- - 2015 A.P.msklawreports

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.