Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.1440/2009, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.02.2012 passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore, dismissing I.A.No.6. The application sought return of Ex.P35, the original sale deed, which had already been marked in evidence. The petitioners contended that the law does not require any reasons to be assigned for taking back an original document already marked in evidence. The respondent, M/s.Gopalan Enterprises (India) Pvt. Ltd., opposed the application. The High Court examined Order 13 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides for return of admitted documents. The court noted that the rule entitles any person, whether a party to the suit or not, who produced a document and placed it on record, to receive it back, unless the document is impounded under Rule 8. The court held that the right to receive back the document is absolute and does not require any reasons to be assigned. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed I.A.No.6, directing the return of the original sale deed to the petitioners.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Return of Admitted Documents - Order 13 Rule 9 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Right to Receive Back Document - The petitioner sought return of original sale deed (Ex.P35) already marked in evidence. The Trial Court dismissed the application requiring reasons. The High Court held that Order 13 Rule 9 CPC confers an absolute right on the person who produced the document to receive it back, subject only to the document not being impounded under Rule 8. No reasons need be assigned. The impugned order was set aside and the application allowed. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a party is required to assign reasons for seeking return of an original document already marked in evidence under Order 13 Rule 9 CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 18.02.2012, and allowed I.A.No.6, directing the return of the original sale deed (Ex.P35) to the petitioners.
Law Points
- Return of admitted documents
- Order 13 Rule 9 CPC
- No reasons required for return of original document
- Right to receive back document produced in suit
Case Details
2014 LawText (KAR) (03) 25
Writ Petition No.11897/2012(GM-CPC)
Sri.Saravana S., Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, M/s. Lex Nexus; Sri.V.Ramesha Babu, M/s.Chalapathy & Srinivas
Sri.Rupen Patel and Sri.Prakash Babu
M/s.Gopalan Enterprises (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Trial Court dismissing an application for return of original document.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought setting aside of the order dated 18.02.2012 on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.1440/2009 and return of the original sale deed (Ex.P35).
Filing Reason
The Trial Court dismissed the application for return of the original sale deed, requiring reasons for the return.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court dismissed I.A.No.6 seeking return of Ex.P35, Original Sale Deed.
Issues
Whether a party seeking return of an original document already marked in evidence must assign reasons for such return under Order 13 Rule 9 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the law does not require any reasons to be assigned for taking back an original document already marked in evidence.
The respondent opposed the application, but the judgment does not specify the respondent's arguments.
Ratio Decidendi
Order 13 Rule 9 CPC confers an absolute right on any person who produced a document and placed it on record to receive it back, unless the document is impounded under Rule 8. No reasons need be assigned for seeking return of the document.
Judgment Excerpts
Order 13 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure that provides for Return of Admitted Documents reads as under: ...
A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that any person, whether a party to the suit or not, desirous of receiving back any document produced by him in the suit and placed on the record shall, unless the document is impounded under rule 8, be entitled to receive back the same.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed O.S.No.1440/2009 before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore. During the suit, the original sale deed (Ex.P35) was marked in evidence. The petitioners filed I.A.No.6 seeking return of the said document. The Trial Court dismissed the application on 18.02.2012. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 13 Rule 9
- Constitution of India: Article 226
