ELUMALAI Vs. A G L IRUDHAYARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in the original suit O.S. No. 12065 of 2010 pending on the file of VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai are the petitioners in the Civil Revision Petition. The defendants therein are the respondents. The third defendant in the original suit is the first respondent in the Civil Revision Petition. The case is in part-heard stage. In fact, the above said suit was originally filed on the Original Side of the Madras High Court as C.S. No. 597 of 2006. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by an order dated 19.03.2007 directed the High Court to make an effort to dispose of the same within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the said order of the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further directed that the parties should not create any third party right till the completion of the suit.

(2.) Thereafter, consequent to the enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, the civil suits stood transferred to the City Civil Court and made over to VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai after being renumbered as O.S. No. 12065 of 2010. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a Transfer Application Tr. A. No. 2468 of 2012 not in O.S. No. 12065 of 2010, but in the non-existing C.S. No. 597 of 2006, to withdraw and transfer O.S. No. 12065 of 2010 to the file of the High Court. A learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 30.10.2012 dismissed the said transfer application and directed the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to take note of the order passed by the Supreme Court and pass appropriate orders.

(3.) After the completion of examination of witnesses on the side of the plaintiffs, the defendants' side evidence commenced. The third defendant, who is the first respondent herein, figured as the first witness (DW1). His proof affidavit referred to several documents to be marked as exhibits on his side, xerox copies of which had been filed along with the written statement. As an objection was raised on behalf of the plaintiffs for marking those xerox copies, the third defendant filed a memo producing the originals of some of those xerox copies. Thereafter, the third defendant filed an application for reception of additional documents. The said application was allowed. When the documents relied by the third defendant was sought to be marked, an objection was raised stating that they should not be marked as they were xerox copies. Meanwhile, the third defendant filed another memo producing the available original documents to be substituted for the xerox copies. Then, the proof affidavit was taken on file and the documents were marked as exhibits on the side of the third defendant.