FRANKLIN FERNANDEZ Vs. MAJO STALIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/plaintiff in I.A Nos. 22 of 2014 and 25 of 2014 in O.S No. 116 of 2009 of the Sub Court, Attingal, challenging the order dated 04.01.2014, by which both the applications were dismissed. The factual matrix of the case is as follows. The application in I.A No. 22 of 2014 in O.S No. 116 of 2009 is filed for receiving the documents on the file of the court. The other application I.A No. 25 of 2014 is filed for marking the documents produced along with the application. Both the applications were objected by the defendant/counter petitioner on the ground that, the examination of plaintiff was over and trial already commenced and that those documents were produced in a highly belated stage.

(2.) Heard Sri G.P. Shinod, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M R Sarin, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(3.) The impugned order passed in I.A Nos. 22 of 2014 and 25 of 2014, are dated 04.01.2014. Admittedly, those two applications were filed after the examination of the plaintiff and completion of cross-examination. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner that a specific question was asked during the course of crossexamination of PW1/plaintiff with respect to the source of amount alleged to have been advanced to the defendant and also regarding the documents if any available to show the source of amount. In pursuant to the above said question, documents were produced along with the applications in I.A Nos. 22 of 2014 and 25 of 2014. The former one is for receiving the said documents on the file of the lower court and the latter one is for marking the same as Exhibits. The former one was dismissed by the lower court stating that, the plaintiff is not the custodian of the documents mentioned in the petition and that it was not produced from proper custody. The said application in fact filed for receiving the documents on the file of the court. There is a lot of difference between "receiving documents on the file of the court" and "acceptance in evidence". The probative value of the documents or admissibility of the documents is normally available at the final stage viz., at the stage of final argument either in the suit or in the interlocutory application filed for any interim relief. It is really impermissible to jump into a conclusion on an earlier point of time regarding the probative value of documents produced in an application submitted for receiving the document. The only question which can be looked into by the court at the time of reception of document on the file is the material defect, if any, attached to the document, such as deficiency of stamp fee, substantial damages if any suffered by the document and the like. Its probative value cannot be considered on a petition, which was filed for receiving the documents on the file of the court. Mere receipt of documents in the file of the court, does not mean that it was accepted or admitted in evidence. The expression "admitted in evidence" stands for admitting a document on satisfying its probative value, relevance and admissibility in evidence, which requires elaborate consideration and it can be done only at the final argument stage. Order 13 Rules 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure are extracted below for reference: