Paramdeep Singh vs Kartar Singh and Another

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioners has impugned the order dated 21.2.2012 passed learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, whereby defence of the petitioner has been struck off under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, as he has not filed the written statement. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 50,000/- along with future interest from the date of filing of suit till its recovery. Respondent No. 1/plaintiff happens to be an advocate, who at one stage represented the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and is seeking recovery on account of non-payment of counsel fee. He has represented them and also served legal notices on their behalf to the tenants. They raised dispute with regard to payment of counsel fee. Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is claiming counsel fee from defendants in 31 cases. Petitioner and respondent No. 2 moved a specific application for production of the documents and their details so that they may be in a position to file written statement.

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without looking at the documents on which plaintiff/respondent No. 1 relies for his claim, petitioner is not in a position to file written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Order 7 Rule 1 CPC to contend that the particulars of the plaint mentioned in para 4 of the suit do not mention any registration number of the complaint, the date on which it was registered, on which date it was decided and whether it is pending or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner made reference to Order 7 Rule 1 CPC which states that the plaint must contain clear and specific particulars, description, facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose. Here in this case, respondent No. 1 has failed to furnish the same in spite of the application moved by the petitioner. Reference to Order 7 Rule 5 CPC has been made and it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that plaint should show that defendant is liable to be called upon to answer the plaintiff's demands. It is contended that there is non-compliance of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC specifically as the plaint does not disclose the cause of action nor shows when it arose. Learned counsel for the petitioner made reference to para 12 of the plaint, which reads as under:-

That the cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file the present suit against the defendant initially on the serving the notice, filing the complaints and rent applications in court and decided the same and on making part payment lastly on 31.8.2005, cause of action further arose when demands were made and further lastly a legal notice dated 26.1.2008 was served to the defendants and also still conducting the cases, cause of action is continuing one and shall continue to accrue to each day till the clearance of the total outstanding fees, therefore, the present suit of the plaintiff is filed well within time.

From perusal of above-said paragraph it is not clear that on which date plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed petitions mentioned in para 4 of the plaint. Every suit or complaint, rent application constitutes an individual cause of action. It does not show on which date those complaints were filed and what was the agreed fee for the same. No power of attorney has been annexed in which the fee is generally mentioned. It is the duty of plaintiff/respondent No. 1 to give all the details, only thereafter court can proceed.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC when the plaintiff relies upon the documents on the basis of which plaintiff sues or relies then such documents are required to be entered in the list and produced in the court when plaint is presented. When such documents are not in possession of the plaintiff, it shall be stated in whose possession these are. In the present case, petitioner/defendants had sought those documents so that they may file their written statement.

Prima facie reading of the plaint makes it clear that suit is based on the documents as it is claimed by plaintiff/respondent No. 1 that he had filed complaints, suits and rent applications on behalf of the defendants. Furnishing of the copies of the documents to the petitioner/defendants is necessary and imperative in the interest of justice so that they can file proper written statement. In such circumstances the court can exercise its inherent powers to direct the plaintiff to furnish the copies of the documents. Reference can be made to Sreenivas Basudev Vs. Vineet Kumar Kothari,

Having considered the facts of the case, it is clear that defendants were not in a position to file proper written statement for want of documents and they moved appropriate application for supply of the copy of the documents.

This Court vide order dated 22.7.2013, directed plaintiff/respondent No. 1 to supply photostat copies of the relevant documents. Order dated 22.7.2013 reads as under:-

Mr. Kartar Singh Arora, Advocate - respondent No. 1 states that he will supply to the counsel for the petitioner photostat copies of the relevant documents as the original documents are in the Court files which have been consigned to record room after decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that he will pay the photostat charges to Mr. Kartar Singh Arora.

Adjourned to 31.7.2013.

In spite of the directions issued by this Court, plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has not supplied the documents to the petitioner.

In these circumstances, impugned order is set aside. Petitioner/defendants shall continue to have their right to file written statement till the original or certified copies of documents mentioned in para 4 of the plaint are filed by plaintiff/respondent No. 1. The said documents shall be filed by the plaintiff within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, otherwise the suit shall stand dismissed. The suit of the plaintiff shall not proceed till said documents are not filed within the stipulated period. As and when the documents are filed in Court and copies of the same are supplied to the petitioner/defendants, petitioner/defendants shall file the written statement within 30 days from the receipt of such documents. Present revision petition is disposed of in above terms.