STATE OF ASSAM Vs. HEBILLA N. SANGMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. G Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N Deka, learned counsel for the respondents. This matter is taken up for disposal as both the learned counsels gave their consent for its disposal.

(2.) In this revision petition, order dated 26.09.2016 is impugned which was passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Title Suit No. 339/2016. The present respondents, as the plaintiffs, preferred Title Suit No. 339/2016 against the present petitioners/ defendants for declaration of payment/ realisation of money and for permanent injunction. The plaintiffs/ respondents took steps on the defendants/ petitioners and the present petitioners/ defendants entered appearance on 26.9.16. On the said date, an application was filed by the said petitioners/defendants praying for time to file written statement along with a prayer for a direction to the plaintiffs/ respondents to furnish copies of the documents relied by them. The learned court below on perusal of the case records and hearing the parties refused to direct the plaintiffs/respondents to supply the documents relied by them to the present petitioners/ defendants. However, time for filing written statement was granted. Being aggrieved by the said order, more specifically, with respect to non-exercise of the jurisdiction by the learned court below for giving a direction to the plaintiffs/ respondents to supply the copies of the documents so relied, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr. Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioners/ defendants, submits that there is no bar in giving a direction to the plaintiffs/ respondents to supply the copies of documents relied by them along with the plaint. It is further submitted that the learned court below was under a misconception that if in the plaint documents are being annexed to the plaint that forms part of the plaint and the said documents filed separately, along with a list of documents then, the defendants are not entitled for copies of the documents relied by the plaintiffs/ respondents as the same does not form part of the plaint. Accordingly, Mr. Rahul submits that the learned court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction within the ambit and scope of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure. So, he prays for setting aside the said order directing the court to pass an order in terms of the ambit and scope of the Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure.