P.VENKATESAN Vs. V.GAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 1 to 7 in O.S.No.185 of 2010 pending on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee are the petitioners in the present revision. The suit was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 against the revision petitioners and respondents 3 to 5 for partition and separate possession claiming 2/9th share in the suit properties, for a permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners [defendants 1 to 7] from putting up any construction in the suit properties and for a declaration of a number of documents to be sham and nominal and not binding on the respondents 1 and 2/ plaintiffs. The suit is resisted by the revision petitioners herein, who are defendants 1 to 7.

(2.) During the course of trial, the defendants examined the 1st defendant as D.W.1. Through him, 34 documents were sought to be marked as exhibits on their side. Out of 34 documents, the learned trial Judge had objection regarding three documents for being marked through the 1st defendant, who figured as D.W.1 and hence, the remaining 31 documents alone were marked as Exs.B1 to B31 on the side of the contesting defendants. The unmarked documents, which were found in Serial Nos.10, 25 and 26 of the list annexed to the proof affidavit of DW1 are: 1) Deed of Undertaking dated 18.08.2004 allegedly executed by Santhakumari and Ramesh in favour of the fourth defendant Radhakrishnan; 2) Promissory Notes and unfilled cheques issued by the second plaintiff in favour of several persons, which were obtained on discharging the debts due to those persons; and 3) a rental agreement dated 21.02.2002 between the second plaintiff and the owner of the building in which he was running a milk booth.

(3.) Pursuant to the refusal of the trial Court to mark those documents through DW1, respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No.27 of 2014 under Order XIII Rule 7 (2) of C.P.C. to return those unmarked documents. At the same time, the revision petitioners chose to file I.A.No.28 of 2014 under Order VIII Rule [1-A][3] of C.P.C. for receiving the above said documents. The learned trial Judge, after hearing both sides, by orders dated 01.02.2014, dismissed I.A.No.27 of 2014 filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein/plaintiffs and allowed I.A.No.28 of 2014 filed by the revision petitioners/defendants 1 to 7.