LAWS(MAD)-2001-1-78

S MOHAMMAD ALI Vs. BASHEER AHMED

Decided On January 19, 2001
S. MOHAMMAD ALI Appellant
V/S
BASHEER AHMED, REP. BY HIS POWER AGENT ABDUL KALAM, 2-70-A PALLIVASAL STREET, TIRUMULLAIVASAL, SIRKALI TALUK, NAGAPATTINAM DISTRICT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the petitioner in I.A. No.397 of 1999 and the third defendant in O.S.No.32 of 1998 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai.

(2.) BEFORE the settlement of issues between the parties in the above suit, the revision petitioner filed I.A. No.397 of 1999 under Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to produce the documents that are provided in the list accompanied in the above application, submitting that the same could not be traced earlier and therefore, could not be produced. However, the respondent/plaintiff objected the permission on the grounds that the first document was not registered and therefore, no right could flow under the same in favour of the revision petitioner; that the second document was a fabricated one for the purpose of the case and the respondent/plaintiff is not a party in the alleged arrangement made under the second document: and that, in any event, the documents 3 to 8 are not related to the suit properties.

(3.) NO doubt, as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 8A of Order 8 of the Civil Procedure Code, the defendant is under obligation to produce any document in his possession or power which he claims as a basis of his defence at the time of presenting his written statement. However, sub-rule 2 of Rule 8A of Order 8 of the Civil Procedure Code further provides for production of a document, which ought to have been produced by the defendant, but was not so produced, shall not, without the leave of the Court at the hearing of the suit. Thus, sub-rule (2) of Rule 8A of Order 8 of the Civil Procedure Code bars the production of a document which ought to have been filed at the time of presenting the written statement, but was not so produced, without the leave of the Court. On the other hand, there is no bar for production of the document, which ought to have been produced by the defendant at the time of presenting the written statement, but was not so produced, with the leave of the Court at the hearing of the suit.