Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4222 (MAD)

D. Menaka & Others v. P. Devaki & Others

2008-11-17

M.VENUGOPAL

body2008
Judgment :- The revision petitioners/respondents/plaintiffs have preferred this revision as against the order dated 210. 2008 in I.A.No.15168 of 2008 in O.S.No.5261 of 2007 passed by the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in allowing the application filed by the respondents/petitioners/defendants praying for permission of the Court to file additional documents stated therein. 2. The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.15168 of 2008 in O.S.No.5261 of 2008, has inter alia opined that on going through both the petition and counter by mark these documents, the real thing will come out to the light of the Court through which a fair judgment can be pronounced and resultantly allowed the said application. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners urges before this Court that the respondents have filed proof affidavit of D.W.1 and have filed I.A.No.15168 of 2008 seeking for leave of the trial Court to file additional documents and that the said application is not maintainable either in law or on facts and that the trial Court has not appreciated the fact that for non production of documents at prior point of time, no sufficient reasons have been pleaded or demonstrated before the trial Court and further that the trial Court has failed to discuss or consider the objections raised in the counter and has mechanically passed the order the impugned order allowing I.A.No.15168 of 2008 in O.S.No.5261 of 2007 in the absence of any valid ground or reason and therefore prays for allowing the revision petition to prevent the miscarriage of justice. 4. The first document which is said to be marked as additional documents is the photostat copy of the proceedings dated 21. 1966. Other two to five documents relate to the property, water tax,notice dated 17. 2008 and complaint dated 3. 2008 and police certificate and the voters list. Except the first document viz., the photostat copy of the proceedings, other two to five documents are said to be the original ones. 1966. Other two to five documents relate to the property, water tax,notice dated 17. 2008 and complaint dated 3. 2008 and police certificate and the voters list. Except the first document viz., the photostat copy of the proceedings, other two to five documents are said to be the original ones. Notwithstanding the fact that the respondents/defendants have quoted incorrect provision of law in the interlocutory application, this Court is of the considered view that the same is not fatal and without going into the merits of the case and rival contentions of the parties pertaining to the case, this Court at this juncture, directs the trial Court to receive the additional documents mentioned in I.A.No.15168 of 2008 subject to proof and relevancy and the same may be permitted to be marked in the manner known to law and strictly in accordance with law. 5. It is made clear that though in the interlocutory application at paragraph 3, it is averred that the respondents herein have manipulated the said assignment order as if the said Assignment order was made in favour of Mr.C.Palayappan and Mr.C.Devan and they have filed and marked a photostat copy of the said manipulated order before this Court as Ex A1 and the same is being extracted by the trial Court in the preamble portion of its order,the same cannot have any bearing on the merits of the main case and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the main case uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this revision petition, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to report the compliance to this Court without fail. 6. The civil revision petition is disposed off in above terms.