- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Lakshmi And Another v. Chinnammal Alias Rayyammal And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The litigating parties are co-sharers who allegedly executed a deed of partition on 28-11-2002. Disputing the authenticity of that deed, the plaintiffs (appellants before the Supreme Court) filed a civil suit seeking its cancellation and also lodged an FIR, registered as Crime No. 699 of 2003. During the criminal investigation the police seized the original partition deed and forwarded it to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai.
In the civil suit the plaintiffs first filed an application (IA No. 1 of 2005) under Order 13 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to obtain the handwriting expert’s report; that request was granted by the trial court. They later filed a second, similar application to secure the fingerprint expert’s report concerning the same document. On 8-3-2005 the trial court rejected the second application, citing lack of particulars and lack of power to compel production of documents still with the police. The High Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution on 5-1-2007. The present appeal to the Supreme Court followed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a civil court can, under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC, compel production of the original forensic (fingerprint) report and related records that are in the custody of a criminal court/police during an ongoing criminal case.
- Whether the plaintiffs’ application contained sufficient particulars to warrant exercise of the discretionary power under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- The trial court and High Court erred in holding that necessary details of the criminal case had not been disclosed; the Crime number and court were in fact specified.
- Order 13 Rule 10 CPC has wide scope, intended to advance justice and avoid multiplicity of proceedings; therefore it should have been invoked.
- Because the genuineness of the partition deed is central to the suit, the plaintiffs are entitled to obtain the expert’s report to prove their case.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Ordering transfer of the expert report would effectively stay the criminal proceeding, which should be avoided.
- The plaintiffs could and should have obtained a certified copy instead of seeking the original through court summons.
- The plaintiffs have not shown that the document is necessary, so the Supreme Court should not interfere in discretionary matters.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Anil Behari Ghosh v. Latika Bala Dassi, AIR 1955 SC 566 | A criminal conviction is not evidence of the fact in civil proceedings; the civil court must decide the issue independently. | Cited to emphasise that the civil suit must base its findings on its own evidence, making the expert report relevant. |
| Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi, (2004) 1 SCC 438 | A criminal court’s decision does not bind a civil court, whereas a civil court’s decision can bind criminal proceedings. | Used to explain that obtaining the document in the civil suit would not improperly interfere with the criminal case. |
| Union of India v. State, 1961 42 ITR 753 (Cal) | Order 13 Rule 10 CPC applies to “any suit or proceeding,” including non-judicial proceedings; documents may be summoned from authorities. | Relied upon to show that records with investigative authorities can be called for under Rule 10. |
| Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480 | Procedural rules are handmaids of justice and should be construed to advance, not thwart, justice. | Invoked to support a liberal interpretation of Order 13 Rule 10 in favour of truth-finding. |
| Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh, (2006) 1 SCC 75 | Curable procedural defects should not defeat substantive rights unless expressly mandated. | Cited to criticise the trial court’s refusal based on technical deficiencies in the application. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs had, in fact, stated the Crime number, the court in possession of the record, and the nature of the document sought. Consequently, the trial court’s conclusion that particulars were missing was “a manifest error.” The Court observed that the same trial judge had earlier allowed production of the handwriting expert’s report and offered no logical basis to deny the fingerprint report.
Referring to Order 13 Rule 10 CPC, the Court reiterated that civil courts may summon records from other courts or proceedings when the original is necessary for justice and obtaining certified copies would cause unreasonable delay or expense. Bringing relevant documents on record assists the court’s duty to discover the truth and should not be refused unless it encourages a “fishing enquiry” or improperly stalls criminal proceedings. The Court further reasoned that calling for the original document would not stay the criminal trial, which retains primacy.
The precedents cited collectively underline that procedural rules should not obstruct substantive justice, that civil courts are not bound by criminal findings, and that Rule 10 is broad enough to reach documents in non-judicial or investigative custody. Accordingly, the denial of the plaintiffs’ request was incompatible with these principles.
Holding and Implications
HELD: The appeal is allowed; the judgments of the High Court and the trial court are set aside, and the plaintiffs’ application to summon the fingerprint expert’s report is to be granted. No order as to costs.
Implications: The decision affirms a liberal, justice-oriented construction of Order 13 Rule 10 CPC, clarifying that civil courts can summon original documents from criminal or investigative custody when necessary to decide the civil dispute, without automatically impeding the criminal process. No new legal test is created, but the ruling reinforces the primacy of substantive justice over procedural technicalities.
S.B Sinha, J.— Leave granted.
2. “Procedural mechanics” involving interpretation of Order 13 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as “the Code”) falls for consideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 5-1-2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature of Madras in CRP No. 559 of 2005.
3. The parties hereto are co-sharers. Allegedly, a deed of partition was entered into by and between them on or about 28-11-2002. Questioning the genuineness of the said deed of partition, a suit for cancellation thereof was filed by the appellant therein. Indisputably, in relation thereto, a first information report was also lodged. During investigation, the investigating officer recovered the purported original deed of partition from the custody of the respondent. It was sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai.
4. The appellant filed an application in the said suit marked as IA No. 1 of 2005 calling for the report of the forensic expert from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam as regards the purported signatures of the petitioner. The said application was allowed by the learned trial Judge. In the meantime, allegedly a second report with regard to the thumb impression of the petitioner on 15-2-2005 was also received from the forensic science laboratory. He filed a similar application under Order 13 Rule 10 of the Code before the learned trial Judge.
5. By an order dated 8-3-2005, the trial court rejected the said application, stating:
“But the petition does not contain the details such as serial number and the date of the documents which are requested to be sent for. The petition does not mention that the documents are the records of Crime No. 699 of 2003 or the related records. It has not been stated in both the petition and the counter-statement that the investigation is over. Only the crime number has been mentioned in the petition. Since it has not been stated on behalf of the petitioner that the investigation is over and that the final report has been filed in this regard, and that it is not possible for the court to ask from time to time the documents which are in their possession as a result of investigation and that the provisions of Order 13 Rule 10 CPC do not empower the civil court to direct the production of documents which are in the custody of police and that it has not been stated whether such documents have been filed and kept on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate and that the issue whether the partition deed is false or true has to be established by examining witnesses and it is the responsibility of the plaintiff in this regard and after that the examination of witnesses of both plaintiff and the defendant are not over and that keeping in mind the objections raised by the respondent-defendants that the petitioner-plaintiffs are in collusion with Sathyamangalam Police and that it is not possible to send for the documents with the police when the investigation is not over and that the plaintiff could establish the falsity of the partition deed by other witnesses and other documents and for the said reasons the petition is not acceptable and having decided so.”
6. An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed thereagainst has been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment.
7. Mr Vijay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit:
(1) The learned trial court and consequently the High Court committed an error in observing that the details of the criminal case as also the court wherein it had been pending was not disclosed by the appellant.
(2) Order 13 Rule 10 of the Code having wide application and having been enacted to further the ends of justice and avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings, the same should have been invoked.
(3) The genuineness and authenticity of the partition deed dated 28-11-2002 being in issue in the suit, the appellants were entitled to call for the report of the expert to prove their case.
8. Mr V. Prabhakaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would submit:
(i) By directing the criminal court to transfer the evidence collected by the investigating officer the proceeding before the criminal court shall remain stayed, the impugned order should not be interfered.
(ii) The appellant should have obtained the certified copy of the report and filed it before the civil court, which having not been done, the impugned judgment cannot be faulted with.
(iii) The appellant having not been able to establish that the report in question was necessary for proving their case, this Court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
9. Order 13 of the Code provides for production, impounding and return of documents. Rule 1 of the said Order mandates production of original documents by the parties at or before the settlement of issues.
10. Rule 9 of Order 13 provides for return of admitted documents. Rule 10 empowers the court to send papers from its own records or from other courts. It reads as under:
“10. Court may send for papers from its own records or from other courts.—(1) The court may of its own motion, and may in its discretion upon the application of any of the parties to a suit, send for, either from its own records or from any other court, the record of any other suit or proceeding, and inspect the same.
(2) Every application made under this rule shall (unless the court otherwise directs) be supported by an affidavit showing how the record is material to the suit in which the application is made, and that the applicant cannot without unreasonable delay or expense obtain a duly authenticated copy of the record or of such portion thereof as the applicant requires, or that the production of the original is necessary for the purposes of justice.
(3) Nothing contained in this Rule shall be deemed to enable the court to use in evidence any document which under the law of evidence would be inadmissible in the suit.”
11. The appellants in their application disclosed the following facts:
(1) That a first information report was lodged on 1-11-2003 against the defendants. The same was registered as Crime No. 699 of 2003.
(2) The original partition deed dated 28-11-2002 was sent to the Director, Forensic Science Department along with the appellant's admitted signatures by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam at the request of the investigating officer.
(3) The plaintiffs have come to learn that a report of the expert was also filed therein in regard to the thumb impression of the appellants.
12. In that view of the matter, the learned trial Judge, in our opinion, committed a manifest error in holding that requisite particulars have not been furnished by the appellants. Furthermore, the learned trial Judge himself had allowed a similar application so far as the opinion of the handwriting expert was concerned. It is, therefore, difficult to comprehend as to on what basis a similar prayer made by the appellant in regard to the opinion of the fingerprint expert could be held to be not maintainable.
13. If bringing on record a document is essential for proving the case by a party, ordinarily the same should not be refused; the court's duty being to find out the truth. The procedural mechanics necessary to arrive at a just decision must be encouraged. We are not unmindful of the fact that the court in the said process would not encourage any fishing enquiry. It would also not assist a party in procuring a document which he should have himself filed.
14. There cannot furthermore be any doubt that by calling for such documents, the court shall not bring about a situation whereby a criminal proceeding would remain stayed as it is a well-settled principle of law that where a civil proceeding as also a criminal proceeding is pending, the latter shall get primacy.
15. In Anil Behari Ghosh v. Latika Bala Dassi AIR 1955 SC 566 it is stated: (AIR p. 571, para 15)
“15. … The learned counsel for the contesting respondent suggested that it had not been found by the lower appellate court as a fact upon the evidence adduced in this case, that Girish was the nearest agnate of the testator or that Charu had murdered his adoptive father, though these matters had been assumed as facts. The courts below have referred to good and reliable evidence in support of the finding that Girish was the nearest reversioner to the estate of the testator. If the will is a valid and genuine will, there is intestacy in respect of the interest created in favour of Charu, if he was the murderer of the testator. On this question the courts below have assumed on the basis of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court in the sessions trial that Charu was the murderer. Though that judgment is relevant only to show that there was such a trial resulting in the conviction and sentence of Charu to transportation for life, it is not evidence of the fact that Charu was the murderer. That question has to be decided on evidence.”
16. In Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi (2004) 1 SCC 438 this Court held:
“(3) A decision by a criminal court does not bind the civil court while a decision by the civil court binds the criminal court. An order passed by the Executive Magistrate in proceedings under Sections 145/146 of the Code is an order by a criminal court and that too based on a summary enquiry. The order is entitled to respect and wait before the competent court at the interlocutory stage. At the stage of final adjudication of rights, which would be on the evidence adduced before the court, the order of the Magistrate is only one out of several pieces of evidence.”
17*. In a civil suit, a document has to be proved. The report of an expert is also required to be brought on record in terms of the provisions of the Evidence Act. Having regard to the provisions contained in Order 13 Rule 9(1) first proviso (a)(i) of the Code, the civil court would furthermore be entitled to substitute the original document by a certified copy. We, therefore, fail to appreciate as to why the said original document could not be called for.
18. We may notice that a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Union of India v. State (1961) 42 ITR 753 (Cal) held that a document may also be called for from the authorities under the Income Tax Act, stating: (ITR pp. 759-60)
“Further, it may be pointed out that Order 13 Rule 10(1) of the Civil Procedure Code does not refer to a judicial proceeding. It refers to a suit or proceeding. Even if the proceeding in connection with the issue of a search warrant under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act be considered a non-judicial proceeding on the part of the Magistrate, such a non-judicial proceeding would still be within the scope of Order 13 Rule 10(1) of the Civil Procedure Code. In the circumstances, we cannot accept the contention of Mr Dutta that as there was no proceeding before the Chief Presidency Magistrate the requisition under Order 13 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code made by the Income Tax Officer would not be a valid requisition.”
19. In Kailash v. Nanhku (2005) 4 SCC 480 this Court has categorically held:
“28. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions of CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice.”
20. In Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh (2006) 1 SCC 75 it was observed:
“17. Non-compliance with any procedural requirement relating to a pleading, memorandum of appeal or application or petition for relief should not entail automatic dismissal or rejection, unless the relevant statute or rule so mandates. Procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure, a handmaiden to justice, should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use. The well-recognised exceptions to this principle are:
(i) where the statute prescribing the procedure, also prescribes specifically the consequence of non-compliance;
(ii) where the procedural defect is not rectified, even after it is pointed out and due opportunity is given for rectifying it;
(iii) where the non-compliance or violation is proved to be deliberate or mischievous;
(iv) where the rectification of defect would affect the case on merits or will affect the jurisdiction of the court;
(v) in case of memorandum of appeal, there is complete absence of authority and the appeal is presented without the knowledge, consent and authority of the appellant.”
21. In view of the aforementioned pronouncements, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Judge should have acceded to the prayer of the appellants herein.
22. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
Alert