SUSAMMA Vs. JUSTIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff in I.A.No.982/2017 in O.S.No.363/2012 on the files of the court below. During the course of examination of the petitioner as PW1, the photocopy of sale deed No.3121/05 was attempted to be marked. However, the same was not permitted to be marked by the court below on the reason that the said document was only a photocopy of the sale deed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.982/2017 before the court below praying for permitting the petitioner to introduce the certified copy of the said document as evidence. The said application was dismissed by the court below as per Ext.P3 order, against which this Original Petition has been filed.

(2.) Heard.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the attempt of the petitioner was only to fill up the lacuna in the evidence and hence the court below was justified in passing Ext.P3 order, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the property covered by the said document is not the property scheduled in the plaint, there is no meaning in permitting the petitioner to mark the said document.