P STANLEY BUCK Vs. V RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner/respondent/defendant has filed this present civil revision petition as against the order dated 17.9.2008 in I.A.No.216 of 2008 in O.S.No.24 of 2006 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2) Coimbatore in allowing the application filed by the respondent/petitioner/plaintiff under Order 14 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code to condone the delay of filing the documents mentioned thereto.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.216 of 2008 in O.S.No.24 of 2006 has inter alia opined that 'the respondent/defendant would not in any way be prejudiced, but the denial of such permission would deprive the right of the petitioner/plaintiff to substantiate this case' and has resultantly allowed the said application.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ respondent/ defendant submits that as per Order 7 Rule 14 Sub Clause (3) of Civil Procedure Code '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 and annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf of the hearing of the suit' and in the present case in the affidavit in I.A.No.216 of 2008, the respondent/petitioner /plaintiff has not shown sufficient and good cause to establish his case for allowing the application and therefore, the order of the trial Court is not correct in the eye of law.