Return of plaint before registering a case - to file the original document - failing which it would be treated as rejection of plain - their Lordships of High court of A.P. held that The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, referred to hereinabove, make it clear that a plaintiff who fails to produce a document or mention it in the list of documents appended to the plaint, only runs the risk of having such documentary evidence excluded unless he obtains the leave of the Court thereafter. Further, originals of the photocopies of documents filed along with the plaint can, in any event, be produced at or before settlement of the issues. In that view of the matter, the order under revision is unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside - 2015 A.P.msklawreports




The subject suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum
of Rs.22,13,000/- from the defendants with interest and costs. His
claim was based on an alleged agreement of sale dated 08.12.2012, 
where under he claimed to have paid them advances, and the cheque  
dated 22.09.2014, allegedly issued by the second defendant towards
part-refund. 
The office appears to have raised an objection requiring
the plaintiff to file the original cheque.

 It is not in dispute that the plaintiff filed photocopies of the
subject cheque and agreement dated 22.07.2014 along with the 
plaint. 
The trial Court however observed that it would have been
more appropriate for the plaintiff to indicate the whereabouts of the
originals of these documents in the plaint and explain his difficulty
in producing them. 
The trial Court concluded that return of the
plaint in these circumstances could not be taken to be rejection
thereof and that the objection raised by the office could not be
deemed improper. 
The trial Court therefore held that the plaintiff
should produce the original cheque dated 22.09.2014 and an
authenticated copy of the agreement dated 22.07.2014, failing
which the plaint was liable to be rejected.

 This Court held that the trial
Court cannot, at the scrutiny stage, insist on the plaintiff to file the
documents, which, in its opinion are relevant for granting relief.

  this           
Court observed that at the stage of presentation of the suit, the trial
Court can only insist on strict compliance with the provisions of the
Code and reject the plaint only if it is satisfied that one or more of
the grounds mentioned in Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code are present.
This Court further observed that it is not the function of the trial
Court to involve itself in examination of a purported discrepancy in
a minute manner and reject the plaint on such ground at the
threshold as such a procedure is not sanctioned by law.
      In the light of the aforestated legal position, the approach of
the trial Court in examining the merits of the suit claim on the
strength of the photocopies placed before it and requiring the
plaintiff to produce the originals thereof as a condition precedent for
registration of the suit was erroneous in law.
 The provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, referred to hereinabove, make it clear
that a plaintiff who fails to produce a document or mention it in the
list of documents appended to the plaint, only runs the risk of
having such documentary evidence excluded unless he obtains the 
leave of the Court thereafter. 
Further, originals of the photocopies of
documents filed along with the plaint can, in any event, be produced
at or before settlement of the issues.
      In that view of the matter, the order under revision is
unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. The trial Court is
directed to entertain the subject suit and register the same if it is
otherwise found to be in order.- - 2015 A.P.msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - permission of court for selling minor property by natural guardian- In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage,there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the Court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question.-2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS24

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 deals with the powers of natural guardian of a Hindu minor and the said section mandates that the natural guardian has power to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate, etc. The provision reads as follows: Sec. 8 . Powers of natural guardian.- (1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant. (2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court,- (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor; or (b) lease any part of such pro...
Read more

APEX COURT DIGEST 2016 - 1

T.P.Act - Registered sale deed coupled with an agreement of re conveyance - for a transaction to constitute mortgage by conditional sale, it is necessary that the condition is embodied in the document that purports to effect the sale . But not when   Sale Deed dated 14.06.1972 and  Agreement of re conveyance dated 14.06.1972 having been executed on the same day and both ought to be read together and when the Sale Deed was executed only as a security for the loan and it was never the intention of the 1st respondent-plaintiff to convey the suit property. Since 1st respondent- plaintiff has paid back the loan amount i.e. Rs.6,700/- as is evident from the subsequent Agreement dated 05.06.1974, the Courts below rightly recorded the concurrent findings of fact that  Sale Deed is not binding on the 1st respondent-plaintiff. Once repayment was made, the 1st respondent-plaintiff was entitled to the declaration as prayed for no need to ask for  cancellatio...
Read more

Section 25(1) of the Customs Act-exempted from payment of customs duty and additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act.-Under Notification No.17/2001, that the benefit of duty exemption is available only for the import of the plant in full either in CKD or SKD condition. - The subject import can be considered only as a part of the plant.-Therefore, the goods under import are not eligible for the duty exemption as provided under the Notification No.17/2001.-what was imported was not a hot mix plant but only certain parts of such plant and, therefore, the exemption notification would not apply. -It is settled law that statements made to an Officer of Customs are admissible in evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.In the present case, both the oral evidence and the documentary evidence ultimately lead to the same conclusion: namely, that what was imported was not a hot mix plant that was complete in itself. - But not an unassembled Hot Mix Plant -have no application to an exemption notification which is issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act. - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPROTS

The appellant entered into a Joint Venture  Agreement  with  M/s            Shapoorji  Pallonji  &  Company  Limited  for  the  purpose   of            construction of roads in the State of Andhra Pradesh.  The Joint            Venture  was  awarded  a  contract  by  the  National   Highways            Authority of India for construction of roads as a  part  of  the            Golden Quadrilateral, Phase-2 Project in Andhra Pradesh. The description reads  :  "Hot                  mix plant batch type with electronic controls and bag  type                  filter arrangement 160 tons per hour capacity." ...
Read more