Madras High Court
Sankaran vs S.A.M. Amjad Ibrahim on 25 July, 2012
Author: V. Dhanapalan
Bench: V. Dhanapalan
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated :: 25..07..2012
Coram ::
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Dhanapalan
C.R.P. ( P.D. ) No: 2489 of 2012
Sankaran
No: 15/39 New Bharath Hotel
R.K.V. Road
Erode. ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. S.A.M. Amjad Ibrahim
No:3, Jeenath Complex
Bhavani Main Road
Erode 5.
2. J. Fathima Ziraira
D. No: 15/1 Rahamath Nagar
B.P. Agraharam
Erode 5.
3. J. Mahamutha Rasina
D. No: 28 Vinayagar Street
B.P. Agraharam
Erode 5.
4. P.R. Subbarayalu
No: 31 Venkata Perumal Street
Erode. ... Respondents
.. .. ..
Cvil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 31.10.2011 made in I.A. No: 971 of 2011 in O.S. No: 744 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Erode.
For petitioner :: M/s. T. Muruga Manickam
For respondents :: Mr. S. Krishnasamy
.. .. ..
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging an order dated 31.10.2011 made in I.A. No: 971 of 2011 in O.S. No: 744 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Erode.
2. The Revision Petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit which is one for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfereing with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. The respondents / defendants have filed their written statement and the matter has been proceeded on trial. At that stage, the revision petitioner made an attempt to move an application under Order 13 Rule 3 read Section 151 C.P.C. praying for an order to remove exhibits B.4 and B.5 from the list of exhibit of documents on the ground that those documents are inadimissable in evidence for want of registration and stamp duty.
3. The learned trial Judge, on consideration of the petitioner's case, passed an order to the following effect :
" On perusal of the endorsement made by the respondent and on perusing the entire documents it is seen that the disputed documents which are exhibits B.4 and B.5 have already been marked. At the time of marking of those documents, the petitioner plaintiff has not objected to the same. Therefore, the trial Court took a view that the validity of the documents and acceptance of the same has to be decided by the Court only at the time of judgment (trial). However, the trial Court has also opined that mere marking of the documents will not give any evidentiary value and dismissed the interlocutory application with liberty to the petitioner to raise this objection at the time of argument (trial)."
4. Mr. T. Muruga Manickam learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has consistently pleaded that unregistered and unstamped document is inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, the two documents namely, exhibits B.4 and B.5, cannot be taken in evidence while proceeding with the trial.
5. On the other hand, Mr. S. Krishnasamy learned counsel appearing for the respondents points out that there was an endorsement made by the respondents before the trial Court and there was no objection at the time of marking of the documents and that all the contentions raised by the revision petitioner here can be agitated during trial and, therefore, the decision arrived at by the trial Court cannot be faulted with.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material documents made available on record.
7. Admittedly, the revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit filed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfereing with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants have filed their written statement. The suit is ripe for trial. At that stage, the petitioner has attempted to stall the proceedings by filing an interlocutory application seeking to remove exhibits B.4 and B.5 from the list of documents on the ground that those two documents are unregistered and unstamped and they cannot be taken into consideration as evidence. It is seen that there was an endorsement made by the revision petitioner before the trial Court and that there was no objection on the side of the plaintiff while marking those two documents. Therefore, it is now for the trial Court to frame an issue and proceed further with the matter including the validity and acceptance of those two documents. If at ll the revision petitioner / plaintiff wants to object to any document, it is always open to him to contest the issue during trial. Instead of resorting such a proceedure, the revision petitioner has attempted to stall the proceedings by seeking to remove Exhibits B.4 and B.5 from the list of exhibits. It is true that an unregistered and unstamped document is inadimissable in evidence. But, already the plaintiff has not objected to the marking of those two documents and has also made an endorsement before the trial Court. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff to contest the validity and acceptance of those documents during trial. The trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that mere marking of documents will not give any evidentiary value to those documents and that the plaintiff has every right to raise an objection at the time of trial.
8. Therefore, the reasoning of the trial Court in rejecting the interlocutory application, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not call for any interference and, therefore, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no orders as to the costs. However, the revision petitioner is at liberty to question the validity of those documents namely Ex. B.4 and B.5 at the time of trial. Counsel on either side, request for a direction to be issued for speedy disposal of the suit. The trial Court is hereby directed to expedite the disposal of the suit.
gp 25..07..2012 Index :: Yes Website :: Yes To I Additional District Munsif Court, Erode. V. Dhanapalan, J. C.R.P. ( P.D. ) No: 2489 of 2012 25..07..2012