RAJAGOPAL Vs. SINOUVASSANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision has been filed challenging the order dtd. 5/8/2013 passed in I.A.No.45 of 2013 in A.S.No.3 of 2012 by the Principal Sub Judge, Pondicherry.

(2.) The petitioners are the 5th to 7th defendants in the suit O.S.No.302 of 2006 filed by the first respondent for partition. The suit was decreed in favour of the first respondent by the Principal District Munsif Court at Pondicherry. Aggrieved over by the dismissal of the suit, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the Principal Sub Judge, Pondicherry in A.S.No.3 of 2012. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners filed I.A.No.45 of 2013 in A.S.No.3 of 2012 under Order 41 Rule 27 r/w 151 CPC to receive the petition mentioned documents as additional evidence. The documents included the photo copy of the plaint filed in O.S.No.872 of 2005, Original French sale deed dtd. 30/10/1950, Original Translation Deed dtd. 30/10/1950, Original Registered Will dtd. 7/12/1993, Original Registered Will dtd. 23/6/1999, Family Ration Card dtd. 15/7/2005, Original Patta dtd. 1/7/1998, Water Tax Receipt dtd. 7/1/2004, Water Tax Receipt dtd. 31/1/2005 and Voter Identity Card dtd. 24/6/2002. According to the petitioners, the documents mentioned in the petition could not be produced earlier, since the suit filed by them in O.S.No.872 of 2005 against the first respondent was decreed in their favour only on 6/1/2011 and therefore, they could file a copy application only after the decree of the suit and get certified copy of the said documents.

(3.) A counter was also filed by the first respondent in I.A.No.45 of 2013 filed by the petitioners in A.S.No.3 of 2012 stating that the petitioners ought to have filed all the documents along with their written statement and if there was any delay only with the leave of the Court that too only in the suit O.S.No.302 of 2006, the documents ought to have been produced by the petitioners and not in the appeal. Further, all the documents mentioned in the Order 41 Rule 27 application were very much available even at the time of the pendency of the suit and therefore, they cannot be produced in the appellate stage.