Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 96 (MAD)

S. Vajjiravelu v. Shanmugasundaram

2009-01-09

G.RAJASURIA

body2009
Judgment :- Anim-adverting upon the order dated 16. 2008 passed in I.A.No.192 of 2008 in O.S.No.9 of 2006 by the Subordinate Court, Cheyyar , this civil revision petition is filed. 2. Pithily and preciously, the case of the petitioner, as stood exposited from the records could be portrayed thus: The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.9 of 2006 for recovery of money and closed his side. After adducing evidence. Whereupon the matter has been posted for the petitioner/defendants side. At that time, I.A.No.192 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner for reception of the documents, namely: TAMIL However, the trial Court simply rejected his prayer on the ground of laches. Being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the said order this civil revision petition has been filed on various grounds. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop his argument to the effect that it is the contention of the petitioner/defendant that the dues payable towards the respondent/plaintiff was discharged already and in order to fortify and buttress the stand of the petitioner/defendant, those documents were sought to be filed, but unjustifiably, the trial Court prevented the respondent/plaintiff from filing the same and marking them. 4. A bare perusal of the order of the lower Court would demonstrate and exemplify that it adverted to the chequered career of the case, so to say, the decreeing of the suit ex-parte earlier twice and solely based on that ground, the lower Court rejected the prayer of the petitioner/defendant to file those documents. 5. I am of the considered opinion that ample opportunity should be given to the petitioner/defendant to buttress and fortify his stand by filing those documents and marking the same, subject to objections, if any, that would be put forth by the respondent/plaintiff, as they are Court related ones and some are public documents like copies of sale deeds. At this juncture my mind is reminiscent and redolent of the following decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1158 (Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat and another), an excerpt from it would run thus: "13. At this juncture my mind is reminiscent and redolent of the following decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1158 (Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat and another), an excerpt from it would run thus: "13. 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. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that 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.) 14. 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 objection 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. We may also point out that this measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation and would not add to their misery or expenses." 6. As such, adverting to the above decision, the trial Court shall permit the petitioner/defendant to file those documents and mark the same subject to the objections, if any, that would be raised by the respondent/plaintiff. 7. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.