CRP/6138/2026 of R.Sami Vs K.Padhmanaban on 1 October 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 03.09.2026

( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:44 pm )

CRP No. 6138 of 2026

made in I.A.No.02 of 2026 in I.A.No.01 of 2026 in O.S.No.178 of 2024 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for a direction to the respondent/defendant to produce the original Agreement of Sale dated 15.10.2020 to mark the same through witness, came to be rejected by the Court below.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the materials available on record and this Court also carefully went through the order passed by the Court below.

3. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.178 of 2024 seeking for the relief of recovery of money with interest. The specific case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that the defendant had entered into an Agreement of Sale with one Geetha, who is the wife of Unni Krishnan, and for that purpose, he requested the plaintiff to give him a loan and plaintiff had lent a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- and this amount was not repaid back. This was the cause of action with which the suit was filed.

4. The case reached the stage of trial and the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 to issue summons to Unni Krishnan, who is the husband of Geetha, to produce the original Sale Agreement dated 15.10.2020. By an order dated 26.11.2025, the Court permitted the examination of the said Unni Krishnan and

( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:44 pm )

CRP No. 6138 of 2026

directed him to produce the Sale Agreement. However, only photocopy of the Sale Agreement was produced.

5. It is under these circumstances, the present application was filed seeking for a direction to the respondent/defendant to produce the original Sale Agreement, on the ground that the vendor had handed over the original Sale Agreement to the respondent/defendant.

6. The respondent/defendant took a stand that he is not in possession of the original Sale Agreement.

7. The Court below has dismissed the application on the ground that the Court cannot compel the respondent/defendant to produce the document which is not in his possession.

8. The reason that has been assigned by the Court below while dismissing the application does not suffer from any perversity warranting the interference of this Court. The petitioner/plaintiff wants to substantiate his case, since according to the petitioner/plaintiff, the loan was given only for the purpose of enabling the respondent/defendant to enter into an Agreement of Sale with one Geetha. Hence, he wants the said Sale Agreement to be marked in the suit. The petitioner has made all attempts to obtain the original Sale Agreement. But

( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:44 pm )

CRP No. 6138 of 2026

however, both the husband of the vendor as well as the respondent/defendant are not producing the original Agreement of Sale. Hence, if the petitioner establishes the foundational facts for let in secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 60 of BSA Act, 2023), an appropriate application can be moved before the Court below and the Court below can consider the same in line with the said provision and proceed further in accordance with law. This clarity will sufficiently take care of the grievance expressed by the petitioner.

9. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SSR

( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:44 pm )

CRP No. 6138 of 2026

To The VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:44 pm )

CRP No. 6138 of 2026

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. SSR CRP No. 6138 of 2026 01-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:44 pm )