Chidambara Chettiar vs Parvathi Achi

Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.—The defendant in Original Suit No. 29 of 1922 on the file of the Subordinate Judge''s Court, Mayavaram is the

petitioner before me. The petition is to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge dismissing his application for receiving certain documents

produced by him which documents should have been produced either at the first hearing of the suit, namely, at the settlement of issues, or on or

before such date thereafter as might be fixed by the Court. There are no materials before me on which I could possibly say what the practice was

in this particular Court or of the particular Subordinate Judge. I am aware that the practice with regard to this matter generally varies from Court to

Court and from Judge to Judge. It is possible that the Pleader who appeared for the defendant thought that some date would be fixed for the

production of the documents in the possession or power of his client. It is admitted before me that the documents were not called for at the

settlement of issues, nor was any date fixed on or before which the parties were required to produce the documents in their respective possessor

for power. Mr. Seshagiri Sastri the learned Vakil for the respondent, con: tents that, under Order 13, Rule (1), C.P.C., the provision in the

previous Code for the I Court calling for the documents has been deliberately omitted. It is, however, noteworthy that Rule 64 of the Civil Rules of

Practice made by this Court indicates that the document should be called for on some date fixed by the Court for Such documents being produced

and left in the Court. However that may be, an affidavit was filed before the learned Judge setting out that the defendant was unable to find the

documents earlier and that it was after searching the old record that he was able to find the documents then produced and that, therefore, those

documents should be received the delay being excused. There was no counter-affidavit filed and all that the learned Subordinate Judge says in his

order is that the reasons given for the documents not having been produced in time cannot at all be accepted. It does not appear from this order

that the learned Subordinate Judge paid any attention to the nature of the documents or that his order proceeded on any consideration of the nature

of the documents included in the list. I take the order to mean that the reasons set out in the affidavit though true, are not such reasons as would

amount to sufficient reason within the meaning of Rule 2 of Order 13, C.P.C. If, on the other hand, the learned Subordinate Judge meant by his

order that the reasons given were not true, it seems to me there was, on the state of the evidence before him, no ground for his rejecting summarily

the sworn statement made in the affidavit of the defendant. Further, the stage at which this application was made was a comparatively early stage in

the suit and no prejudice whatever could possibly have been done to the other party by the documents being received. It seems to me that the

learned Subordinate Judge did not pay sufficient attention to the seriousness, so far as the party was concerned, of the order he was making in

rejecting so summarily the application for documents being received. As from the order it is not clear to me what the learned Subordinate Judge

meant and as, in any view, I am satisfied that he ought not to have rejected the documents in the summary manner he did, I set aside the order and

direct that the petition be re-heard, and if necessary, after an opportunity being afforded to the plaintiff-respondent to show any cause having

regard to the nature of the documents why the same should not be received now. There will be no costs of this petition because the petition is

really due to the negligence on the part of the defendant. Bach party will pay and bear his own costs here.