S SENTHAMARAI Vs. J VIJAYAKUMARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in both these civil revision petitions is one and the same and as the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 104 of 1996 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai against the respondent herein and Tamilnadu Housing Board seeking for permanent injunction restraining the housing board from executing the sale deed in favour of the respondent herein in respect of Flat No. M14/7, Phase I, presently known as Nava Bharath colony, Besant Nagar, Madras 90 and for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. Though the said suit was decreed by the trial court on 19.04.2002, the Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the decree of permanent injunction granted against the second defendant/Tamilnadu Housing Board restraining them from executing the sale deed in favour of the first defendant. However, the other part of the decree of permanent injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff restraining the first defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession was confirmed. Further, the appeal preferred before this Court in S.A. No. 843 of 2004 came to be dismissed thereby confirming the order of the First Appellate Court. Thereafter, both parties filed application before the trial court seeking for return of the documents. The petitioner as the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 11329 of 2012, praying for return of documents which are marked as Exs. A1 to A24. The first respondent herein as the first defendant filed I.A. No. 8492 of 2012, seeking for return of the documents marked as Exs. A6, A7, A11, A14, A15, A16, X1 to X8 and B1 to B24. The court below by a common order allowed I.A. No. 8492 of 2012 filed by the first respondent herein and ordered to return the documents sought for in the said application. In so far as the application filed, by the petitioner herein in I.A. No. 11329 of 2012 is concerned, the court below partly allowed the same and ordered to return Exs. A1 to A5, 8 to 10, 12, 13, 17 to 24 and thereby rejecting her prayer for returning of the documents marked under Exs. A6, 7, 11, 14 to 16. Aggrieved against the said common order passed by the court below, the present civil revision petitions are filed by the petitioner. Mr. R.N. Amarnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the civil revision petitions contended that the documents which are sought to be returned by the petitioner are the documents which are marked by her as the plaintiff before the trial court. Therefore, when those documents were marked through the plaintiff, it has to be returned only to her and not to the first defendant. He also relied on the provision under Order 13 Rule 9 C.P.C. to contend that the documents have to be returned only to the person who produced the same before the Court.

(2.) Per contra, Mr. M. Sriram, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend that though the disputed documents were produced by the plaintiff, in effect, those exhibits are documents of title to which the first respondent is entitled to have possession. However, the learned counsel also fairly placed the fact that the first respondent had already filed a separate suit in O.S. No. 936 of 2013 on the file of the XVII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai against the petitioner for recovery of those documents from the petitioner herein and the said suit is still pending.

(3.) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side, I am of the view that the documents which are marked by the petitioner as the plaintiff, has to be necessarily returned only to the petitioner and not to the other person in view of the specific provision made under Order 13 Rule 9 C.P.C., wherein it is stated that any person desires to receive back any of the documents produced by him in the suit, shall be entitled to receive back the same. It is an admitted case that the disputed documents were marked only through the plaintiff. Therefore, the order of the court below in returning those documents to the first respondent is not proper. However, if those documents are in respect of title to the 'B' schedule property, as claimed by the first respondent, it is for the first respondent to seek possession of the same through proper course of action which in fact, he has taken already by filing a separate suit. Whether he has got a right to seek possession of those documents or not has to be decided only in the said suit which is admittedly pending. Therefore, without prejudice to the rights of the respective parties in the above said suit, the order of the court below is set aside and it is ordered that the petitioner herein is entitled to return of the documents also under Exs. A6, 7, 11, 14 to 16 apart from what was granted already. Accordingly, I.A. No. 11329 of 2012 is allowed and the order made in I.A. No. 8492 of 2012 in so far as directing to return Exs. A6, 7, 11, 14 to 16 to the first respondent herein is set aside. It is made clear that the order made in these civil revisions shall not in any way influence the mind of the court which is dealing with the suit in O.S. No. 936 of 2013 filed by the first respondent as the same has to be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. The civil revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.