AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Arumugham, J.—The main challenge in this revision is the order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore made in
I.A. No. 1254 of 1995 in O.S. No. 313 of 1991 dated 1.2.1996 allowing the petition filed u/s 151 of the CPC granting permission to send some
material documents marked in the suit on behalf of the plaintiff for examination to the India Security Press at Nasik in Maharashtra State, to
ascertain the date of issue of the stamps found in those documents in spite of the serious objection by filing the counter statement on behalf of the
revision petitioner herein. The petitioner/plaintiff which is one of the nationalised banking institutions at Cuddalore has filed the suit against the
respondent herein for recovery of the suit amount on the basis of certain loan documents created by the defendant originally and thereby got the
monetary consideration by way of loan and had the transaction with the plaintiff/revision petitioners. Since the entice amount has not been repaid
during the course of the said business transaction, several revival letters on various subsequent dates were claimed to have been executed by the
respondent herein which according to the revision petitions emerged into the very basis for the suit claim and thus for the default of the repayment
of the loan amount committed, the revision petitioners has filed the suit. The respondent the suit by filing a written statement in which he has
contested the suit claim of the plaintiff on more than one ground and the significant amongst them is that the revenue stamps affixed in the several
revival letters were of recent origin however, opted to represent the earlier period in order to mulct the civil liability upon this defendant and to have
the decree against him. After framing the issues on the basis of the contentions raised on behalf of both the parties, since the suit itself was ripe for
trial, the trial was commenced. Recording of oral and documentary evidence on behalf of the respective parties was almost over and the argument
was also heard in in toto. It was at this stage, the defendant chose to file the present application. u/s 151, C.P.C. and sought the permission of the
court to send the suit documents to the Defence Press at Nasik in Maharashtra State to ascertain the exact distribution date of the revenue stamps
affixed in the suit documents. Though the petition was seriously resisted, on hearing the respective parties on merits of the application, the trial court
allowed the petition by passing the impugned order on payment of a sum of Rs. 300/- by the respondent herein to the revision petitioner on or
before 19.2.1996. The property of the impugned order is thus being challenged.
I have heard Mr. Raghunathan, learned counsel on behalf of the revision petitioner and the contra contentions by Mr. Kannan for the
respondent. That apart, on factual aspects it is seen that the common ground made available in the instant case is, the claim of the plaintiff made in
the plaint as well as the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent do not go to show that the suit transaction as a whole or in part is totally
false or frivolous. But, however, the mode of contention on behalf of thee defendant is that the revenue stamps distributed in the subsequent period
and later years were used by the revision petitioner/plaintiff in the revival letters marked as Exhibits P-3, P-4, P-5, P-7, P-11, to P-15, P-17, P-
18, P-21, P-26, P-27, P-28, P-29, P-30, P-34, P-35, P-37, P-38, P-39, P-40, and P-41 which were executed by the defendant even at the
original stage of the loan secured. Significant at this stage to note that the application warranting the impugned order was filed by the defendant with
such aforesaid allegation only after recording of the oral and documentary evidence was closed and over. Besides the arguments were advanced. It
is, therefore, under the circumstances, I have no hesitation to say that the attempt made by the respondent/defendant by taking such a novel plea is
clearly an afterthought and a clever scheme set out by the defendant to procrastinate the disposal of the suit on merits by the trial court for some
unending period. The trial court, however, seems to be ignorant of the above said factor and virtually failed to take note of it. It is rather
unfortunate also the note that the settled law by the Apex Court as well as various High Courts in this country, that the original documents which
came into custody of the court below cannot at all be sent anywhere for the purpose of examination or analysis without adequate reasoning given
by the court, has not at all been followed. This Court has repeatedly and very often held on more than one occasion that unless and until the
extraordinary situation arises warranting subjection of the original documents from the custody of the court to any third person or authority sending
documents out of court''s custody cannot be sustained. However, it could be done only for the extraordinary reasoning found and specifically given
by the court in any given case. The main reasoning for such legal ratio seems to be inherent that the originals allowed to bee taken from the custody
of the court of law for any purpose, than the possibility of tampering with or eluding away with some of it or some malpractices at the hands of
somebody due to some extraneous reasons cannot at all be ruled out, in which event, the parties who are armed with the said original documents
will be totally deprived of their valuable right to get any decree or order from the court of law. Despite the serious objections foretasted on behalf
of the plaintiff/revision petitioner herein, the learned trial Judge overlooked the same and accepted the very prediction of the defendant as a true
one. It is rather unfortunate in this case and for the said reason alone I am not inclined to subscribe my view to the impugned order passed by the
trial court.
One more reason available to interfere with the impugned order in this revision is the legal evidence tendered by and on behalf of both parties
was already recorded and came to a close and then both parties were at their feet of argument. It was at this stage an attempt was made by and on
behalf of the defendant that the above referred original documents are to be sent to the Defence Press at Nasik to ascertain the date of the
distribution of the stamps found in the said documents. It is not known as to what impediments or obstacles prevented the defendants to take such
a plea or attempt to vindicate his remedy at the earliest point of time and the very absence or explanation for the same goes to the root of the
controversy and clearly exposes the shallow piece of defence schemed out by the defendant at a later stage. Enough for me at this stage to stop
with these three grounds to identify the illegality and impropriety of the impugned order passed by the trial court and no more legal exercise is
necessary to interfere with the impugned order. In the context that the trial of the suit is almost over, including the hearing of the arguments
advanced on behalf of both sides and when the trial court is about to dispose the case by delivering judgment, filing of the application inviting
passing of such impugned order in the instant case, in my considered view, cannot at all be deemed to be a good ground or a bona fide attempt nor
any valid ground is available to allow. I have carefully gone through the impugned order passed by the learned trial judge. Enough for me at this
stage to say that the approach adopted by the court below in passing the impugned order is not proper and that under the circumstances the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
On ordering the notice of motion, the Bar for the respondent had entered appearance and I had the opportunity of hearing both sides on merits
of the revision. With the concurrence of the Bar for the respective parties, I have disposed of the main revision itself. In the result, for all the
reasoning given above, I admit the present revision and on consideration of the merits of the case, I allow this revision in toto and accordingly the
impugned order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddlier in I.A. No. P1254 of 1995 in O.S. No. 313 of 1991 dated 1.2.996
is hereby set aside. Under the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs for either of the parties. In the light of thee position of the suit as
pointed out above, I hereby direct the trial Court to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 4366 of 1996 is
dismissed.