KAMARAJ Vs. RAGUMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent herein filed the suit against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 in O.S.No.71 of 2010 before the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, for specific performance and permanent injunction. The petitioner herein had filed written statement. After framing of the issues, the 1st respondent/plaintiff filed proof affidavit for chief examination and marked the documents. The disputed document was marked as Ex.A.1. The petitioner herein raised objection at the time of marking Ex.A.1 and the learned Subordinate Judge, marked the said disputed document as Ex.A.1 subject to objection raised by the petitioner herein. Challenging the said marking of the document Ex.A.1, the petitioner herein filed the present Revision Petition before this Court.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ex.A.1 is a sale deed. It is an unregistered sale deed and since the said sale deed is unregistered and insufficiently stamped, the said document cannot be marked and cannot be looked into for any purpose and he further submits that the suit itself is barred by limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge has failed to consider that Ex.A.1 is an inadmissible document and therefore, the marking of the document has to be rejected from the list of evidence.

(3.) (a) To support his contention that the court has power to reject the irrelevant or inadmissible documents at any stage of proceedings, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner relied upon the decision of this court reported in 2014 (5) CTC 118. [Udhayakumar @ Kumar Vs. G.Kishore Kumar and others.]