T.SHANMUGA BHARATHIVEL Vs. PREMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner took out an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC, in E.A.No.192 of 2025, for receipt of two documents, namely, the registered sale deed dtd. 5/8/1996 and an unregistered sale deed dtd. 25/3/2016 as exhibits in E.A.No.128 of 2024 (Application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC).The said application, on contest, came to be dismissed, as against which, the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) I have heard Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.N.Manoharan for Mr.D.Vasanth, learned counsel for the respondents. I have also gone through the records, including the order impugned in the revision petition, besides various decisions on which reliance has been placed on by both the learned counsel.

(3.) Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would state that the revision petitioner claims to be in possession of the subject property under an unregistered sale deed. It is his further contention that the antecedent original sale deed in favour of his vendor, who is also the vendor of the contesting respondents, was also handed over to the petitioner and the petitioner was also willing to pay the necessary stamp duty, together with penalty, in order for the unregistered sale deed to be exhibited and received as evidence in the Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC application.