Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 534 (MAD)

Chandrahasan & Others v. Sadasivam & Others

2002-06-28

P.D.DINAKARAN

body2002
Judgment :- By consent, the main revision itself is taken up for hearing. 2. The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.148 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam, laid by the respondents/plaintiffs for declaring that the respondents/plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property; for a permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners/defendants from in any manner interfering with the possession of the respondents/ plaintiffs over the suit property; and for costs. 3. Alleging that the revision petitioners/defendants were not permitted to mark the document relied upon by them as a defence, the defendants have filed the above revision, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL V. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in (2001) 3 S.C.C. 1 , wherein it is held as follows: " When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. There is no illegality in adopting such a course. However, if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed. The above procedure, if followed, will have two advantages. First is that the time in the trial court, during evidence-taking stage, would not be wasted on account of raising such objections and the court can continue to examine the witnesses. The witnesses need not wait for long hours, if not days. Second is that the superior court, when the same is recanvassed and reconsidered in appeal or revision against the final judgment of the trial court, can determine the correctness of the view taken by the trial court regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to the trial court again for fresh disposal. Second is that the superior court, when the same is recanvassed and reconsidered in appeal or revision against the final judgment of the trial court, can determine the correctness of the view taken by the trial court regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to the trial court again for fresh disposal. This measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation and would not add to their misery or expenses. Therefore, the above is made as a procedure to be followed by the trial courts whenever an objection is raised regarding the admissibility of any material or any item of oral evidence." 5. Applying the above ratio laid down by the Apex Court in BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL V. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in (2001) 3 S.C.C. 1 , this revision is allowed, permitting the revision petitioners/defendants to mark the said document, subject to the right of the respondents/ plaintiffs to object the same in a manner as indicated in the decision of the Apex Court, referred to above. Consequently, C.M.P.No.16585 of 2001 is closed.