RAJENDRAN Vs. JAMAL MOHAMMED FIZAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed against the order passed in I.A.No.7 of 2021 in O.S.No.298 of 2016 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladudurai.

(2.) Respondents filed O.S.No.298 of 2018 for the relief of recovery of possession and for permanent injunction and other reliefs. When the suit was pending for examination of respondents/plaintiffs evidence, respondents filed I.A.No.7 of 2021 for production of the documents by condoning the delay in filing the documents. This application was filed under Order VII Rule 14 and Sec. 151 C.P.C. It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of this petition that the documents mentioned in I.A.No.7 of 2021 are important documents to prove the case of the respondents. These documents came to the possession of the respondents only now and therefore these documents could not be filed along with the plaint. Thus, the petition for condoning the delay in filing the documents was filed. This contention of the respondents was strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioners alleging that there is absolutely no pleadings with regard to these documents in the plaint. In the absence of any pleadings with regard to these documents, petitioners are denied the opportunity of raising their objection to these documents in their written statement. That opportunity is lost to the petitioners. Moreover, there is no mention in the affidavit as to where these documents during all these times and in whose possessions these documents where. There is also no reference about when these documents came to the possession of the respondents. Some of these documents are required to be registered and therefore they are not admissible in evidence. Some of these documents are xerox copies, therefore they cannot be admitted in evidence. These documents can be marked only through petitioner Jamal Mohammed Fizal and not through Ahamed Ali who filed the petition as a power agent of the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 C.P.C. Only the documents are relied in the plaint can be received. Since, these documents are not relied in the plaint they cannot be received. In support of this submission, he pressed into service, the judgment reported in 2021 (4) L.W. 309 (M/s. Vijayalakshmi Palanisamy Charitable Trust Vs. Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Tirukkoil). Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional Sub Judge, Mayiladudurai in allowing the I.A.No.7 of 2021 is not in accordance with law and has to be set aside.

(3.) In response, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents came to possess these documents only recently. There are enough pleadings available in the plaint that these documents are necessary documents to prove the case of the respondents. Merely because these documents are not specifically adverted to in the plaint, respondents cannot be denied the opportunity to produce the material documents before the Trial Court for proving their case. If these documents are not permitted to be produced and marked, respondents would be seriously prejudiced and it would affect the outcome of the case. Thus, he prayed for sustaining the order of the learned Additional Sub Judge, Mayiladudurai and for dismissal of this Civil Revision Petition.