AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Horwill, J.—The petitioner filed a suit on a promissory note executed in the name of the manager of the family which fell to the share of the
petitioner in partition. With his plaint he filed the promissory note, but not the partition decree under which this promissory note fell to his share.
The Court called for a copy of the decree, but as it was not produced within the time allowed, the plaint was rejected. The petitioner thereupon
filed a review application, which was dismissed on the ground that the Court could not condone the laches of the petitioner.
The only grounds on which a plaint can be rejected are set out in Order VII, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code. The non-production of a
document on which the plaintiff relies is not one of the reasons. In Rule 14 of the same 6rder a plaintiff is required to produce in Court when the
plaint is presented any document sued upon which is in his possession or power; but even if the decree be considered to be such a document, the
punishment for the non-production of such a document is not the rejection of the plaint, but that set out in Rule 18 of Order VII, viz., that the
document shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
As the plaint was wrongly rejected, the review application should have been allowed. This petition is therefore allowed, the review application
granted, and the plaint ordered to be received by the Court. There will be no order as to costs.