JEYAM Vs. VIJAYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Devakottai, in I.A.No.270 of 2010 in O.S.No.57 of 2006.

(2.) The revision petitioners are defendants 2, 3, 5 to 16 and 18 in the suit in O.S.No.57 of 2006. The suit was filed for partition of 1/2 share in all the suit properties and for other consequential reliefs including the relief to set aside some of the alienations alleged to have been executed by the defendants 13, 15 and 16 in favour of third parties. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff is the daughter of one Vellaiyan and Goodi and that her father and mother died leaving her as one of the legal heirs along with other heirs of the father and mother through their first marriage. During the pendency of the suit, the revision petitioners filed an application in I.A.No.270 of 2010 to receive the death certificate of one Arumugam who is the father of third defendant and the death certificate of Tmt.Goodi, the mother of third defendant. It is stated that these certificates would certainly helpful to the defendants to establish the falsity of the averments made in the plaint. However, the application was dismissed by the lower Court on the ground that these documents were filed after evidence was closed on 11.12.2007 and that the revision petitioners have filed several applications after the evidence on the side of the defendants was closed. Aggrieved by the same, the above Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the rejection of documents at the initial stage without considering the relevance or its admissibility is not sustainable. He also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of N.Subhash Chand Jain v. Uniply Industries Limited reported in 2011 (2) CTC 258. It is held by the learned Single Judge of this Court that the Court cannot refuse to receive the documents filed by parties at the threshold relying upon the precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases. As a matter of fact in yet another judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Gurusamy v. Santhanam reported in 2005 (5) CTC 102, this Court has deprecated the practice of refusing to receive the document filed by the parties at the first instance by Court. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that no objection is raised by the respondent with regard to the relevance of the document and no prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondent. In a suit for partition and separate possession, every document speaking about the relationship and facts affecting the line of succession or inheritance is important. In the present case, having regard to the peculiar facts relating to the relationship between the parties, the proof regarding death of parties may have relevance. Hence, the Court is not proper in dismissing the petition without considering the merits of the case. In the above circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Revision Petition.