Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1944 (MAD)

R. Ganesan v. G. Amudha Devi & Another

2006-08-02

P.D.DINAKARAN

body2006
Judgment :- (C.R.P. filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 16.12.2005 in I.A.No.421 of 2005 in O.S.No.65 of 2004 on the file of Family Court, Pondicherry. ) The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 16.12.2005 in I.A.No.421 of 2005 in O.S.No.65 of 2004 on the file of Family Court, Pondicherry. 2.1. The revision petitioner is the husband and the first respondent is the wife and the second respondent is their daughter. The marriage between the revision petitioner and the first respondent was dissolved by order dated 31.8.1998 in M.O.P.No.169 of 1997 on the file of Family Court, Pondicherry. It is stated that no appeal has been filed and hence, the said order dissolving the marriage has become final. 2.2. The wife/first respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.65 of 2004 before the Family Court, Pondicherry for recovery of educational expenses of the 2nd respondent herein. When the suit was posted for trial, the first respondent/plaintiff/wife came forward with I.A.No.421 of 2005 seeking to receive certain documents after condoning the delay in filing those documents. 2.3. According to the petitioners/respondents herein, those documents are vital for establishing their case and if the documents are not admitted, they would be put to irreparable loss and hardship, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. 2.4. The respondent/revision petitioner herein opposed the petition on the ground that the documents, being filed at a belated stage, are in no way connected to the suit. 3. Learned trial Judge, by order dated 16.12.2005 in I.A.No.421 of 2005, allowed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision has been preferred. 4. The core contention of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that the documents sought to be received are not connected to the suit and the plaintiffs/respondents herein should have filed the documents earlier and the trial Court is not justified in allowing the petition to receive the documents. 5. 4. The core contention of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that the documents sought to be received are not connected to the suit and the plaintiffs/respondents herein should have filed the documents earlier and the trial Court is not justified in allowing the petition to receive the documents. 5. This Court in A.ARUMUGHAM v. K.M.THAMBIRAJAN & ANOTHER (2006-I- L.W.794) held that the question of admissibility of the document is to be raised at a later stage and the relevant portion of the order reads as under:- "It is well settled that the objection as to the admissibility of a document is available to be raised even at a later stage and merely because the document has been marked as an exhibit, such objection is not excluded. (vide: R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P.Temple (2003) 8 SCC 752 ). This Court in S.Mohammad Ali v. Basheer Ahmed ( 2001(2) CTC 391 ) has held that the permission granted to produce a document cannot be construed that the document is automatically admissible in law. (Emphasis supplied)" 6. In the instant case, the respondents/wife and daughter sought to file certain documents to establish their case. While rejecting the objections raised by the husband/revision petitioner herein, the trial Court has rightly found that the validity of the documents would be ascertained at the time of marking the documents and not at the stage of receiving the same. Further, as observed by this Court in A.Arumugham case, cited supra, it is open to the Husband/revision petitioner to raise all objections as to the admissibility of the documents at a later stage. 7. In view of the above principle enunciated in A.Arumugham case (2006-I-L.W.794), I find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned trial Judge. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the admission stage itself, with the liberty to the revision petitioner to raise all objections as to the admissibility of the documents at the time of trial. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2006 is also dismissed.