M CHINNAPPAN Vs. M RANGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Revision Petition is directed against order of the learned Subordinate judge, Krishnagiri dated 17-4-2003, made in I. A. No. 791/2000 in O. S. No. 111/ 95 in and by which the learned Judge has found that the question as to genuineness or not of the Muchalika dated 24-10-1976 is to be decided in the suit after concluding the trial. After making such an observation, the learned Judge closed the said petition.

(2.) IT is seen in the said LA. 791/2000 the petitioner therein, 2nd defendant has prayed for permission to mark family arrangement muchalika dated 24-10-1976 executed between the parties to the suit as document on the side of the defendant. The said application was resisted by the respondents/plaintiffs by filing counter statement. It is relevant to note the objection raised in the counter. In para 8 it is stated that the document in question is insufficiently stamped; hence the same could not be considered for marking the same as a document. The learned Subordinate Judge, after keeping the said Interlocutory Application pending and after giving several adjournments, finally passed an order on 17-4-2003 and closed the said petition stating that the genuineness of the document, namely, muchalika dated 24-10-1976 will be decided in the suit after trial. In this regard, reliance is placed on a judgment of the Supreme court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of gujarat, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 1 : (AIR 2001 SC 1158 ). The following direction issued in para 14 is relevant :