Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3561 (MAD)

S. Rajamanickam Chettiar v. Karthigeyan

2012-08-13

R.S.RAMANATHAN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. This revision is filed challenging the order passed by the Court below in allowing the application filed by the plaintiffs to receive certain documents in evidence. 2. The respondents 1 and 2/ plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession. After the examination of PW1, three applications were filed by the respondents 1 and 2, one application in I.A.No.126 of 2012 to reopen the case and another application in I.A.No.127 of 2012 to recall PW1. I.A.No. 128 of 2012 which is impugned in this revision is to receive the document into Court. The learned Subordinate Judge, Villupuram allowed I.A.Nos.126 of 2012 and 127 of 2012 and also allowed I.A.No.128 of 2012 stating that the earlier applications in I.A.Nos.126 and 127 of 2012 are allowed and therefore this application is also allowed. This revision is filed challenging the order in I.A.No.128 of 2012 passed by the Court below. 3. Mr.T.Arul Raj, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that though the revision petitioner did not file any revision against the order passed in I.A.Nos.126 and 127 of 2012 that will not be a bar for challenging the order passed in I.A.No.128 of 2012. He further submitted that the subject matter of the suit is Survey No.162/A1 and the respondents 1 and 2 wanted to mark the sale notice issued in O.S.No.78 of 1984 between third parties in respect of the properties in Survey Nos.400/1 and 118 /1 and therefore the document sought to be marked has nothing to do with the suit and without appreciating the same the application was allowed and therefore this revision is filed. 4. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. It is seen from the affidavits filed in support of the petitions in I.A.Nos.126 and 127 of 2012 after examination of PW1, the plaintiffs/ respondents 1 and 2 were able to locate an important document and to mark that document the case has to be reopened and PW1 has to be recalled. Those two applications to reopen the case and to recall PW1 were allowed by the Court below and those orders became final and the revision petitioner challenges the order passed in I.A.No.128 of 2012 by which the document was allowed to be filed. Those two applications to reopen the case and to recall PW1 were allowed by the Court below and those orders became final and the revision petitioner challenges the order passed in I.A.No.128 of 2012 by which the document was allowed to be filed. Though the document contained in Survey number which is different from the suit Survey number, the plaintiffs/ respondents 1 and 2 wanted to mark that document and for that purpose the applications were filed to reopen and recall and when the revision petitioner has no objection for reopening and recalling the case for the purpose of marking the document, the revision petitioner cannot have any objection for receiving the document unless the document cannot be received in evidence. Admittedly, the document which is sought to be produced is only a sale notice issued by the Court and the document cannot be objected to be received in evidence and whether the document is relevant for the case or not can be decided during trial. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Court below and the revision is dismissed. 5. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.