SIVAGNANAPANDIAN Vs. DHARMARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Court below dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/defendant to reject the xerox copy of the sale deed, which was marked as Ex.A.4.

(2.) The respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner claiming for the relief of recovery of money along with interest. The pleadings were completed, issues were framed and the case reached the stage of trial. The respondent was examined as P.W.1 and certain documents were marked through him. After the completion of the evidence on the side of the plaintiff, the petitioner was examined as D.W.1. during the course of cross examination, a sale deed dated 07.08.1996 was marked as Ex.A.4. It was objected even at the time of marking and objections were recorded and the document was marked subject to objections.

(3.) The petitioner filed an application for rejecting /eschewing the xerox copy of the sale deed which was marked as Ex.A.4. The Court below dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner had accepted the contents of the document and the document itself was marked subject to objections and therefore, there is no necessity to reject the documents that has already been marked. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not a party to the sale deed that was marked through him as Ex.A.4. The learned counsel further submitted that the xerox copy of a document can never be permitted to be marked unless the permission of the Court was sought for under Section 65(a) of the Evidence Act. The learned counsel further submitted that even if a document is marked, if it is per se inadmissable, the Court can always reject the document at a subsequent stage.