DEVARAJ PADAYACHI Vs. CHAKRAVARTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order passed in I.A.No.1336/2004 in O.S.No.222/1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti, which was filed under Order 13 Rule 2 of CPC, is under challenge before this Court. THE said IA was filed by the plaintiff to receive several documents. THE learned trial Judge allowed the application in part. THE learned trial Judge has permitted to receive the Documents 6 and 7, but rejected the petition in respect of other documents on the ground that they are the depositions of the witnesses in a criminal proceedings in STC.No.169/1995. THE learned Trial Judge has given reasons in his order for dismissal as under Section 145 of the Evidence Act only the contradictions in the deposition of the said persons can be marked. Under Section 32 and 33 of the Evidence Act the deposition of living persons cannot be marked and it is in admissible in evidence.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that there is no embargo for the Court to receive the documents and the validity of the document can be considered at the time of the trial. But this contention cannot be upheld because no useful purpose will be served if the documents are allowed to be received now subject to the Question of admissibility of the same at the time of the trial. So, the documents which are admissible in nature alone can be produced. I do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered order of the learned District Munsif, Panruti, passed in I.A.No.1336/2004 in O.S.No.222/96, which does not warrant any interference from this Court.