{"id":300885,"date":"2023-09-06T13:30:26","date_gmt":"2023-09-06T08:00:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=300885"},"modified":"2023-09-15T12:52:50","modified_gmt":"2023-09-15T07:22:50","slug":"andhra-pradesh-hc-upholds-the-order-dismissing-application-under-order-viii-rule-2-of-cpc-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/06\/andhra-pradesh-hc-upholds-the-order-dismissing-application-under-order-viii-rule-2-of-cpc-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Relevance of the documents sought under Order VII Rule 2 of CPC should be stated in the affidavit: Andhra Pradesh High Court upholds Order dismissing application"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Andhra Pradesh High Court:<\/span> In a case wherein, the petitioner had filed the revision petition to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application filed under Order VIII Rule 2<\/a> and Section 151<\/a> of Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> (‘CPC’), Ravi Cheemalapati, J.<\/span>, opined that the Trial Court had rightly observed that the documents which were sought to be received could not be termed as the petitioner’s admitted signature and the said documents could not be used for comparison of signatures on the alleged promissory note suit, and accordingly dismissed the petition.<\/p>\n

In the instant case, the respondent filed a suit for the recovery of money. Subsequently, in the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order VIII Rule 2<\/a> and Section 151<\/a> of CPC<\/a> to receive the documents filed along with the petition.<\/p>\n

The petitioner stated that he was not able to file those documents while filing the written statements and contended that the suit of promissory note was rank forged and materially altered, and if the documents found along with the petition were not received, he would suffer irreparable loss and great hardship.<\/p>\n

Thereafter, the Trial Court held that the said documents could not be termed as admitted signatures of the petitioner, and also could not be used for comparison of promissory note suit and accordingly dismissed the application. Thus, the present revision petition was filed.<\/p>\n

The petitioner contended that the documents that were sought to be brought on record by the respondent to prove the signature on the promissory note suit, was not the petitioner’s signature, and the said documents were of the year 2012 to 2018, which was the concurrent period of the promissory note suit. The petitioner further contended that the Trial Court had dismissed the applications without assigning any reasons and further failed to see the Order VIII Rule 2<\/a> of CPC<\/a> in the right perspective.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, it was the respondent’s contention that affidavit in support of the application had failed to show as to how these documents were relevant to the suit. Further, if the petitioner wanted to prove that the signature on the promissory note suit was not his signature, he could have sent the documents to the hand writing expert by filing documents that contained his admitted signatures.<\/p>\n

The Court upon perusal of the affidavit filed with the application, opined that, the affidavit only stated that the documents were crucial to prove that the promissory note suit was the rank forged and materially altered, and it was not stated as to how the documents were relevant to the suit. Thus, the Court opined that this was not the proper application to be filed.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that the Trial Court had rightly observed that the documents which were sought to be received could not be termed as the petitioner’s admitted signature and the said documents could not be used for comparison of signatures on the alleged promissory note suit.<\/p>\n

The Court held that they did not find any irregularity or impropriety and there were no valid and justifiable grounds raised in the present revision petition to warrant the interference of the Court and accordingly, dismissed the petition.<\/p>\n

[Punna Ramanasari v. Thummuru Bala Raja Shekhara Reddy, 2023 SCC OnLine AP 1833<\/a>, order dated 20-3-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Petitioner: CH Markondaiah, Advocate;<\/p>\n

For the Respondent: Vivekananda Virupaksha, Advocate.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“It is not stated in the affidavit as to how the documents are relevant to the suit except stating that, the documents are important and crucial documents to prove that the promissory note suit is a rank forged and materially altered.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":290507,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[29879,2553,11211,32045,2712,60776,49526,44446],"class_list":["post-300885","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-affidavit","tag-Andhra_Pradesh_High_Court","tag-application","tag-documents","tag-forged","tag-order-vii-rule-2-cpc","tag-promissory-note","tag-signature"],"yoast_head":"\nAndhra Pradesh HC upholds the order dismissing application under Order VIII Rule 2 of CPC| SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Andhra Pradesh High Court opined that the Trial Court had rightly observed that the documents sought to be received could not be termed as the petitioner\u2019s admitted signature and accordingly dismissed the petition.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/06\/andhra-pradesh-hc-upholds-the-order-dismissing-application-under-order-viii-rule-2-of-cpc-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Relevance of the documents sought under Order VII Rule 2 of CPC should be stated in the affidavit: Andhra Pradesh High Court upholds Order dismissing application\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Andhra Pradesh High Court opined that the Trial Court had rightly observed that the documents sought to be received could not be termed as the petitioner\u2019s admitted signature and accordingly dismissed the petition.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/06\/andhra-pradesh-hc-upholds-the-order-dismissing-application-under-order-viii-rule-2-of-cpc-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-09-06T08:00:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-09-15T07:22:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/andhra-pradesh-high-court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Relevance of the documents sought under Order VII Rule 2 of CPC should be stated in the affidavit: Andhra Pradesh High Court upholds Order dismissing application\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/06\/andhra-pradesh-hc-upholds-the-order-dismissing-application-under-order-viii-rule-2-of-cpc-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/06\/andhra-pradesh-hc-upholds-the-order-dismissing-application-under-order-viii-rule-2-of-cpc-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Andhra Pradesh HC upholds the order dismissing application under Order VIII Rule 2 of CPC| SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/06\/andhra-pradesh-hc-upholds-the-order-dismissing-application-under-order-viii-rule-2-of-cpc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/06\/andhra-pradesh-hc-upholds-the-order-dismissing-application-under-order-viii-rule-2-of-cpc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/andhra-pradesh-high-court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-09-06T08:00:26+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-09-15T07:22:50+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Andhra Pradesh High Court opined that the Trial Court had rightly observed that the documents sought to be received could not be termed as the petitioner\u2019s admitted signature and accordingly dismissed the petition.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/06\/andhra-pradesh-hc-upholds-the-order-dismissing-application-under-order-viii-rule-2-of-cpc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/06\/andhra-pradesh-hc-upholds-the-order-dismissing-application-under-order-viii-rule-2-of-cpc-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/06\/andhra-pradesh-hc-upholds-the-order-dismissing-application-under-order-viii-rule-2-of-cpc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/andhra-pradesh-high-court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/andhra-pradesh-high-court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"andhra pradesh high court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/06\/andhra-pradesh-hc-upholds-the-order-dismissing-application-under-order-viii-rule-2-of-cpc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Relevance of the documents sought under Order VII Rule 2 of CPC should be stated in the affidavit: Andhra Pradesh High Court upholds Order dismissing application\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Andhra Pradesh HC upholds the order dismissing application under Order VIII Rule 2 of CPC| SCC Blog","description":"Andhra Pradesh High Court opined that the Trial Court had rightly observed that the documents sought to be received could not be termed as the petitioner\u2019s admitted signature and accordingly dismissed the petition.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/06\/andhra-pradesh-hc-upholds-the-order-dismissing-application-under-order-viii-rule-2-of-cpc-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Relevance of the documents sought under Order VII Rule 2 of CPC should be stated in the affidavit: Andhra Pradesh High Court upholds Order dismissing application","og_description":"Andhra Pradesh High Court opined that the Trial Court had rightly observed that the documents sought to be received could not be termed as the petitioner\u2019s admitted signature and accordingly dismissed the petition.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/06\/andhra-pradesh-hc-upholds-the-order-dismissing-application-under-order-viii-rule-2-of-cpc-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-09-06T08:00:26+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-09-15T07:22:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/andhra-pradesh-high-court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Relevance of the documents sought under Order VII Rule 2 of CPC should be stated in the affidavit: Andhra Pradesh High Court upholds Order dismissing application","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/06\/andhra-pradesh-hc-upholds-the-order-dismissing-application-under-order-viii-rule-2-of-cpc-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/06\/andhra-pradesh-hc-upholds-the-order-dismissing-application-under-order-viii-rule-2-of-cpc-legal-news\/","name":"Andhra Pradesh HC upholds the order dismissing application under Order VIII Rule 2 of CPC| SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/06\/andhra-pradesh-hc-upholds-the-order-dismissing-application-under-order-viii-rule-2-of-cpc-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/06\/andhra-pradesh-hc-upholds-the-order-dismissing-application-under-order-viii-rule-2-of-cpc-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/andhra-pradesh-high-court.webp","datePublished":"2023-09-06T08:00:26+00:00","dateModified":"2023-09-15T07:22:50+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Andhra Pradesh High Court opined that the Trial Court had rightly observed that the documents sought to be received could not be termed as the petitioner\u2019s admitted signature and accordingly dismissed the petition.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/06\/andhra-pradesh-hc-upholds-the-order-dismissing-application-under-order-viii-rule-2-of-cpc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/06\/andhra-pradesh-hc-upholds-the-order-dismissing-application-under-order-viii-rule-2-of-cpc-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/06\/andhra-pradesh-hc-upholds-the-order-dismissing-application-under-order-viii-rule-2-of-cpc-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/andhra-pradesh-high-court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/andhra-pradesh-high-court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"andhra pradesh high court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/06\/andhra-pradesh-hc-upholds-the-order-dismissing-application-under-order-viii-rule-2-of-cpc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Relevance of the documents sought under Order VII Rule 2 of CPC should be stated in the affidavit: Andhra Pradesh High Court upholds Order dismissing application"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/andhra-pradesh-high-court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":338598,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/07\/andhra-pradesh-high-court-recovery-money-promissory-note-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":300885,"position":0},"title":"Andhra Pradesh High Court upholds recovery of money with interest based on promissory note; Rejects claims of forgery","author":"Arunima","date":"January 7, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court cannot assume that every handwriting Expert who has been duly qualified by the Government will necessarily have such special skill and knowledge that he will always give accurate opinions on one disputed point.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Andhra Pradesh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":317658,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/18\/delhi-high-court-upholds-trial-court-order-dismissing-order7-rule11-application-due-procedural-considerations-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":300885,"position":1},"title":"Issue of limitation cannot be decided without recording of evidence, once it becomes a mixed question of law and fact: Delhi High Court upholds Trial Court\u2019s dismissal of Order 7 Rule 11","author":"Arunima","date":"March 18, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court held that the dismissal of the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was warranted, emphasizing the need to focus solely on the allegations in the plaint at the preliminary stage because the issues regarding limitation and adverse possession required further evidence and examination, which could\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":202271,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/application-for-discovery-of-documents-under-order-xi-rule-12-of-cpc-filed-after-the-stage-of-settlement-of-issues-is-non-maintainable\/","url_meta":{"origin":300885,"position":2},"title":"Application for discovery of documents under Order XI Rule 12 of CPC filed after the stage of settlement of issues is non-maintainable","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 27, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Jharkhand High Court: A Single Judge bench comprising of Chandrashekhar, J. dismissed a civil writ petition filed against the order of trial court dismissing petitioner\u2019s application for discovery of documents. In the present case, the petitioner was the defendant in suit in trial court; where he had filed an application\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":275119,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/06\/delhi-high-court-negligence-of-counsel-not-a-reasonable-ground-within-order-xi-rule-15-cpc-facts-of-the-case-must-disclose-urgency-to-avail-benefit-under-or-xi-r-14-cpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":300885,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court| Negligence of counsel not a reasonable ground within Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC; Facts of the case must disclose \u2018urgency\u2019 to avail benefit under Or. XI R. 1(4) CPC","author":"Editor","date":"October 6, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a case filed by the petitioner challenging dismissal order in relation to an application filed seeking to place on record, certain additional documents which, according to the application, were a necessary and essential part of the suit, but could not be filed with the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":344285,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/24\/s-24-cpc-cannot-invoked-case-filed-in-court-without-jurisdiction-o-vii-r-10-cpc-invoked-bombay-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":300885,"position":4},"title":"S. 24 CPC cannot be invoked for proceedings filed without jurisdiction, Order VII Rule 10 CPC has to be invoked: Bombay High Court","author":"Editor","date":"March 24, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court held that when any Civil Court holds that it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit or application, it had to pass order under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC for return of plaint, and procedure of transfer of proceeding under Section 24 of CPC could\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":358545,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/01\/owner-entitled-to-return-of-original-documents-under-order-13-rule-9-cpc-telangana-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":300885,"position":5},"title":"Who is entitled to return of Original Documents, party who produced it or the owner? Telangana HC clarifies Order 13 Rule 9 CPC","author":"Editor","date":"September 1, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The petitioner had averred that the intent of Order 13 Rule 9 of the CPC 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.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"return of original documents","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/return-of-original-documents.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/return-of-original-documents.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/return-of-original-documents.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/return-of-original-documents.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/300885","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=300885"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/300885\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/290507"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=300885"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=300885"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=300885"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}