CANARA BANK Vs. G MEERABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendant Bank challenging the order passed by the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dismissing the petition filed by the bank seeking to eschew EX.A3 marked during the evidence of PW1 on the ground that the said document is compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act

(2.) The brief facts preceeding the filing of the revision and which are essential for disposing of the revision are as follows:

(3.) The revision petitioner had filed a very detailed written statement in which they had contended that the spot in which the revision petitioner was attempting to put up a Snack Bar was the emergency exit and by putting up the shop the emergency exit was blocked. They had further submitted that earlier one Tower Food Court was given a lease by the said M/s.Dewa Properties Limited to run a Snack Bar and this was objected to by the Bank by giving a complaint to the Corporation of Chennai. However, since, there was no response from the Corporation, the Bank had moved W.P.No.24785 of 2005 for a Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representation of the Bank with reference to this illegal construction. In the said WRIT petition M/s.Dewa properties Limited was also made a party. By an order dated 15.10.2008 the WRIT petition was allowed and ultimately on 21.08.2010 the Corporation of Chennai had demolished the unauthorised structure with the help of the Police authorities. Within two months thereof the said M/s.Dewa properties Limited in total violation of the order of this Court has let out the suit property to the respondent and the respondent has put up the Snack Bar in the very same spot, where the earlier demolished structure was existing. The Bank had submitted that there was a collusion between the plaintiff and said M/s.Dewa Properties Limited and that the respondent had deliberately not impleaded M/s.Dewa properties Limited as a party to the said suit particularly when they were claiming under them. The Bank therefore sought for the dismissal of the suit.