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
