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

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more