PICHAI SENDAPIRIYAR Vs. RAMASAMY VANNIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O.S. No. 51 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur is the appellant. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note on 13.5.1982. THE said promissory note was marked as Ex. A1 in the suit. Since, the defendant did not repay the said amount whenever the plaintiff demanded, the plaintiff caused a lawyer's notice dated 9.7.1984 Ex. A2, calling upon the defendant to pay back the amount with interest. However, the defendant refused to receive the said notice and therefore, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 27,000/-. THE suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff himself signed the promissory note as if the defendant had signed, and therefore, the promissory note is not genuine and consequently there was no obligation on the part of the defendant to pay back the money as claimed by the plaintiff in the suit.

(2.) THE trial Court framed the issue as to whether the promissory note is genuine or not and whether the plaintiff is entitled to the stud sum or not" After discussing the evidence adduced on behalf of both sides, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the promissory note was genuine and was in fact, executed by the defendant after receiving a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the plaintiff and consequently, the defendant is liable to repay the said sum with interest.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions of the counsel for the appellant and the respondent, it would be relevant to refer to the certain provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure as well as Section 3 of the Limitation Act. Order 7, Rule 11 reads as under: "The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: (a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, widiin the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff. Order 7, Rule 12 reads as under: "Where a plaint is rejected, the Judge shall record an order to that effect with the reasons for such order." Order 7, Rule 13 reads as under:- "The rejection of me plaint on any of the grounds hereinbefore mentioned shall not of its own force preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action." Order 7 Rule 14 reads as under:- "(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 (2) Where he relies on any of the documents (Whedier in his possession or power or not) as evidence in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list to be added or annexed to the plaint". Order 7 Rule 18 reads as under: "(1) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint, and which is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit (2) Nothing in this rule applies to documents produced for cross-examination of the defendant's witnesses, or in answer to any case set up by the defendant or handed to a witness merely to refresh his memory." 7-A.A reading of Order 7, Rule 14 coupled wiui Order 7, Rule 18, it would be clear that when a plaint is presented, the plaintiff shall produce the documents in his possession or power on which the suit is based along with plaint. On a perusal of Rule 18, it is clear that a document which has not been annexed to the plaint at the time of the presentation of the same can be produced with the leave of the Court at the hearing of the suit. Therefore, production of document along wiui the plaint as contemplated under Order 7, Rule 14 is only to regulate the procedure. This can be further fortified by the fact that Order 7, Rule 11 specifically enumerates the circumstances in which the Court can reject the plaint Non production of document along with the plaint at the time of presentation is not one of the circumstances where the Court can reject the plaint. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant tiiat provision contained in Order 7, Rule 14 enabling the plaintiff to produce the document upon which the suit is based and tiiose documents are said to be in the plaintiffs possession or power along wiui the plaint is mandatory, cannot be accepted. Section 3 of the Limitation Act reads as follows: "If a suit or appeal or application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence.".