LOKARA OM KUMAR Vs. BAIKAN SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India. It is filed by the defendant in O.S. No.2053 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. The suit is filed for injunction simpliciter by the respondents herein. Along with the written statement, it appears, the petitioner filed a sale deed dated 24-5-1995. The same was however not marked as an exhibit in the evidence. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application being LA. No.387 of 2006 under Order XIII Rule 7(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(CPC). He prayed for return of the sale deed and certified copy of the General Power of Attorney dated 24-6- 1991. He stated in the affidavit accompanying the said application that he requires the documents to avail bank loan. This application was opposed. Taking a view that unless and until the suit is disposed of, the request of the petitioner for return of the documents cannot be accepted, the trial Court dismissed the application. This is challenged as one vitiated by grave error apparent on the face of record.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of Order XIII of CPC in support of the contention that the documents not admitted in evidence can be returned to the person producing the same. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs opposed the civil revision petition. He would urge that as the petitioner desires to raise bank loan by creating a charge on the property, he is not entitled for return of the documents.

(3.) A short but interesting question that requires an answer is whether a document not admitted in evidence and which does not form part of the record can be returned before conclusion of the suit to the party who produced such document.