M UDHAYASURIYAN Vs. B SELVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner / plaintiff has laid the suit for recovery of money against the respondent / third defendant and others. It is found that according to the petitioner / plaintiff, in respect of the business transaction entered into with some of the defendants and as the defendants have admitted the lability to pay the suit amount to the petitioner / plaintiff, it is the case of the petitioner / plaintiff that defendants 1 and 4 had executed a mortgage deed, though styled as a loan document by the petitioner / plaintiff, dated 19.01.2014 and on the same date, the defendants 2, 5 and 6 have executed another mortgage deed, though styled as a loan document by the petitioner / plaintiff, agreeing to pay the amount claimed in the suit to the petitioner / plaintiff, however, to defeat the rights of the petitioner / plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 have also executed a revocation deed of the partnership deed amongst themselves on 17.06.2014 and inter alia the petitioner / plaintiff has claimed the recovery of money in the suit. It is found that the above said documents are only photostat copies. It is further found that the case of the petitioner / plaintiff has been stoutly resisted by the defendants and in fact they have also disputed the execution of the above said purported loan documents, dated 19.01.2014, and the revocation of the partnership deed, dated 17.06.2014, as alleged by the petitioner / plaintiff.

(2.) Be that as it may, it is found that the petitioner / plaintiff had laid an application, in I.A.No.119 of 2016, seeking permission of the Court to mark the above said disputed documents in support of his case. The said application was also resisted by the respondent / third defendant as such and it is found that the Court below, on a consideration of the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties, permitted to mark the above said documents subject to their proof and relevancy.

(3.) While the matter stood thus, it is found that the respondent / third defendant has moved another application before the Court below, in I.A.No.644 of 2016, contending that the petitioner / plaintiff has not established the existence of the original documents as regards the disputed documents as claimed by him and even assuming that the original documents are in place, according to him, the said documents cannot be marked even for collateral purpose as the said documents are not sufficiently stamped and registered as required under law and therefore, according to the respondent / third defendant, the documents marked as Exs.A7 to A9 are liable to be rejected and if the same are to be marked for collateral purpose, the said documents are required to be sufficiently stamped with penalty and therefore, prayed for rejection of the above said documents namely Exs.A7 to A9. The said application was resisted by the petitioner / plaintiff contending among other things that inasmuch as the documents had already been marked subject to their proof and relevancy after inviting the objections of the respondent / third defendant as per the order passed in I.A.119 of 2016, the respondent / third defendant is precluded from again agitating the said issue and seek for the rejection of the documents for the reasons claimed by him. It is the further case of the petitioner / plaintiff that inasmuch as the documents had been marked only for the collateral purpose and the petitioner / plaintiff also relies upon the said documents only as proof or acknowledgment of the debt accepted by the defendants 1 and 2, it is stated that as further the petitioner / plaintiff has not claimed any relief based upon the mortgage deeds as such, it is contended that the action of the Court below in marking of the documents concerned could not be again re-agitated by the respondent / third defendant and hence, the application is liable to be dismissed.