RAVEENDRAN Vs. BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant who was defeated in a suit for realisation of money is the appellant. The suit was earlier decreed. Later it was remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the remand order. The observation was that both parties were at liberty to adduce further evidence. Again the suit was decreed mainly relying on Exts.A4 and A5 proved and marked after remand. That was again appealed against by the defendant; but failed. Therefore, this Second Appeal. The substantial question of law raised in this Second Appeal is, is not the lower court wrong in admitting and relying on the documents which is not made mention in the pleading and not produced as mandated by R.14 and R.17 of O.7 C.P.C.

(2.) It is contended by the defendant/appellant that the plaintiff was a financier and a chitty foreman and he alleges a loan availed of by the defendant and the suit was for realisation of money so obtained upon alleged loan. Necessarily it would have been supported by documents. No document was referred to in the plaint and no document was produced along with the plaint except the postal receipts indicating despatch and acknowledgment of suit notice. No basic document relating to money transaction alleged was also produced. Later the plaintiff produced an alleged account book to show that the defendant had availed a loan of Rs.6000/- from him and also an alleged receipt for the said amount. The transaction made mention of in the plaint was on 9-12-1984. The account book was to show that the amount had been paid to the defendant on the said date. That was Ext.A4. The receipt marked as Ext.A5 was also of the same date to show that the defendant had received the amount. It is an admitted ease before me that these documents were never produced along with the plaint nor such documents were mentioned in the plaint. No list of document was also served indicating such documents, when the suit was filed. Inspite of that the courts below relied on the said document and decreed the suit. It ought not have been, as it was violative of the mandates contained in R.14 of O.7 CPC. The suit was remanded only to decide in accordance with law. In such circumstances, it was incumbent of the plaintiff to file a petition under R.18 of O.7 to admit such documents belatedly produced and to obtain an order in that regard; but the plaintiff failed. In the absence of such procedure irregularity and when the mandate of R.14 of O.7 is thus not observed, necessarily on the basis of R.14 and R.18 of O.7 C.P.C. Ext.A4 and Ext.A5 ought not have been accepted in evidence and acted upon to decree the suit. The question of law is therefore answered in favour of the appellant and that results in reversal of the impugned decree.