UDHAYAKUMAR @ KUMAR Vs. G KISHORE KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal Order dated 6.9.2013 in I.A. No. 845 of 2013 in O.S. No. 287 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurantakkkam, Kanchipuram District. The Revision Petitioner herein as a Plaintiff filed a Suit for declaration that the Sale Deed dated 17.10.2008 in favour of Second Defendant as null and void and also injunction against Third Defendant restraining him in any way granting Patta in favour of Second Defendant to the Suit properties and restraining Second Defendant from alienating or encumbering the Suit properties to third parties and for other reliefs. The First Defendant filed a Written Statement and contested the same. When the case was posted for P.W. 1's oral evidence, the Plaintiff filed an application in I.A. No. 845 of 2013 under Order 7, Rule 14 of C.P.C. for reception of six documents stating that those documents were not filed at the time of filing Suit. The Trial Court, after hearing both sides, received the Document Nos. 4 to 6, but disallowed the Application in respect of Document Nos. 1 to 3, against which, the present Revision Petition is preferred by the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that he has not pressed the Document No. 3, which is a licence of Fire Works and he wants to produce Document Nos. 1 & 2, which were issued by the First Defendant stating that the Plaintiff has borrowed money from the First Defendant, for which, the Plaintiff had executed power of attorney in favour of the First Defendant as security and on that basis only, the First Defendant sold the property to the Second Defendant vide Sale Deed dated 17.10.2008. It is further submitted that the loan has been discharged by the Plaintiff even in the year 2006 and to prove the same, Document Nos. 1 & 2 are necessary. But the Trial Court allowed the application for receiving Document Nos. 4 to 6 filed along with the Petition for condonation of delay. It is further submitted that the Trial Court need not go into the facts of the case whether the documents are admissible evidence or not, but the Trial Court while rejecting Document Nos. 1 & 2 held that those documents are not admissible in evidence, which is unsustainable. For the reason, he relied upon the decision of this Court (i) N. Subhash Chand Jain v. Uniply Industries Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, B.L. Bengani, No. 168, Syndenhams Road, Chennai-600 003, 2011 2 CTC 258; and (ii) Sundaram Dynacast Pvt. Ltd., having its office at M.T.H. Road, Padi, Chennai-600 050, rep. by its Vice President (Operations) v. Raas Controls, having Factory at No. 222, Okhla Industrial Estate,, 2011 3 CTC 302 Phase III, New Delhi-110 020, represented by its Partner, Anju Khanna and others, and prayed for allowing this Revision Petition.

(3.) Resisting the same, learned Counsel for the Respondents would submit that the Document Nos. 1 & 2 did not contain any names and they contain only numbers and document No. 1 has been struck off, so the Trial Court rightly rejected those documents. Further, the learned Counsel would take me through Order 13, Rule 3 of C.P.C., in which, it was held that at any stage of the Suit, the Court can reject the document if it is irrelevant or inadmissible. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Revision Petition. To substantiate his arguments, he relied upon the decision of this Court Balakrishnan and others v. Chandrasekharan, 2003 3 MadLJ 45.