Return Of Documents Under Order XIII Rule 9 CPC Not Limited To Party Physically Submitting Documents But To Ensure Rightul Ownership: Karnataka HC

A single judge bench of Sachin Shankar Magadum sitting at Dharwad bench allowed a petition filed by R Shankar who was the defendant in a suit filed for specific performance filed by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff in the suit had collected the original title deed from the petitioner, which included the sale deed obtained by the petitioner's maternal grandfather from the Co-operative Housing Society dated 14.08.1985, and an original Will dated 19.12.1986 executed by the maternal grandfather in favour of the petitioner.

On dismissal of the suit for specific performance, the court allowed the return of documents produced by the petitioner but declined to order the return of the registered sale deed and the Will. It was held that the title documents were produced by the respondent-plaintiff and under Order XIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), documents admitted in evidence should be returned to the person who produced them in the suit.

On going through the reasoning provided in the impugned orders the court said the orders passed were fundamentally flawed. It said “Though Order XIII Rule 9 of CPC contemplates that admitted documents shall be returned to the party who produced them, this does not bar a party from seeking the return of original documents even if they were not produced by such party.” It urged that the provisions of Order XIII Rule 9 of CPC should not be narrowly interpreted.

Court observed that the failure to return the original documents to the petitioner, who is legally entitled, carries significant consequences. It deprives the petitioner of vital, legal and proprietary evidence, potentially hindering his ability to manage, transfer, or assert rights over the property. The absence of these documents could result in substantial financial and administrative burdens, complicating property transactions and estate management.

Additionally, withholding these documents violates the petitioner's legal rights and procedural fairness as mandated by the Civil Procedure Code. It undermines the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, leading to potential reputational damage to the judicial system, the court said.

The court held that the petitioner was the rightful owner of the original documents in question. These documents, including the sale deed executed by the Cooperative Housing Society in favour of the petitioner's grandfather and the registered Will, should be returned to the petitioner. The fact that these documents were produced by the respondent-plaintiff during the suit does not negate the petitioner's entitlement to them, it was held.

It added “The Trial Court erred in narrowly interpreting Order XIII Rule 9 of CPC. The intent of this provision is to ensure that documents, once they have served their purpose in litigation and are no longer required by the Court, should be returned to their rightful owners.”

Allowing the petition the court directed the trial court to return the original sale deed and the registered Will to the petitioner. The return of these documents shall be subject to the petitioner providing certified copies to be substituted for the originals.

Appearance: Advocate S. B Doddagoudar for Petitioner.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 305

Case Title: R Shankar AND E Ramamohan Chowdary

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 100487 OF 2022