PONNUSAMY Vs. NATARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 29.10.2014 made in I.A.No.369 of 2014 in O.S.No.31 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri.

(2.) The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.31 of 2009 on the file of Sub Court, Krishnagiri. The respondent filed the suit for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit property. The petitioner filed written statement in the month of September 2009 and is contesting the said suit. Trial commenced, respondent let in evidence and evidence on his side was closed. When the suit was posted for evidence on the side of the petitioner, the petitioner filed I.A.No.568 of 2012 to condone the delay in filing the additional documents and permission to mark the same as exhibits. The said application was allowed. According to the petitioner, when he produced the documents for marking, the respondent objected to the same. Hence, the petitioner filed I.A.No.104 of 2013 for permission to mark the documents subject to the objection of the respondent, mentioned in I.A.No.568 of 2012, as exhibits on his side. The said I.A. was dismissed by order dated 09.04.2013. Against the said order of dismissal dated 09.04.2013 made in I.A.No.104 of 2013, the petitioner filed CRP No.2531 of 2013 before this Court. However, the same was dismissed by this Court on 10.06.2014 as not pressed by the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner filed I.A.No.369 of 2014 seeking permission to pay necessary stamp duty at concerned Registrar Office to the said unregistered documents to enable him mark the same as exhibits on his side. The respondent filed counter and opposed the said application on the ground that the said documents are partition deeds which requires registration and cannot be validated by paying stamp duty penalty and only certain documents which are permitted in Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act can be validated by paying stamp duty penalty. The learned Judge, considering the averments in the affidavit and counter affidavit, dismissed the application by order dated 29.10.2014.