Madras High Court
K. Mohammed Rafee vs A.G. Akbar Sherief on 23 January, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2006)1MLJ699
Author: S. Tamilvanan
Bench: S. Tamilvanan
ORDER S. Tamilvanan, J.
1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 20.10.2004, made in R.C.A. No. 70/2004, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, confirming the fair and decretal order dated 28.10.2002, made in I.A. No. 155/2002 in R.C.O.P. No. 54/1999, on the file of the Rent Controller, II Additional District Munsif, Tiruchi.
2. It is seen that the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 155/2002 was filed before the Rent Controller to mark the Xerox copy of an unregistered document and the same was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, since the appellant/tenant herein raised an objection while the original document was to be marked as inadmissible and on the basis of that objection, the same was not marked as Court document.
3. The appellant/tenant has not denied the fact that he had raised objection, while the original unregistered document, was produced by the respondent, for marking. Subsequently, the appellant/tenant filed the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 155 of 2002 under Section 151, C.P.C. seeking a direction to mark the Xerox copy of the said unregistered document stating that it was necessary for collateral purposes. No one can blow not and cold and take a different stand, one for himself and another for the other side. In the instant case when the original document was about to be marked by the respondent, the appellant herein raised an objection and on that basis, it could not be marked. While so, it is strange for the appellant seeking a direction to mark the Xerox copy of the said unregistered document. Considering the facts and the circumstances, the Trial Court, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant/tenant herein.
4. In the impugned order in I.A. No. 155 of 2002 dated 28.10.2002, the learned Rent Controller has stated that on the notice given by the learned Counsel for the petitioner herein the respondent/landlord had produced the original rent deed dated 1.1.1994, but during the course of examination of P.W.2, the learned Counsel for the appellant herein strongly objected to mark the said document on the ground that the said rent deed was hit by the Indian Stamp Act and Registration Act.
5. After the hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, the learned Rent Controller passed an order on 7,2.2002 as the rent deed was for a period of two years and it could have been a registered document. Therefore, the Court below insisted to pay the stamp duty penalty, but both the parties did not mark the document as the party had to pay the stamp duty penalty and they have not preferred any appeal against the order dated 7.2.2002. Subsequently, the petitioner herein/tenant filed the petition seeking an order to mark the Xerox copy of the aforesaid rent deed dated 1.1.1994, which was objected to by the respondent herein as the original was produced before the Court and available to be marked as a document by the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller did not incline to accept the plea of the petitioner herein to mark the Xerox copy. As contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent, the original rent deed dated 1.1.1994 was available before the Rent Controller and the petitioner has every right to mark the same as a document, if he wants to rely on the document. But in order to avoid the payment of Stamp duty penalty, he wanted to mark the Xerox copy of the document, while the original was available.
6. Further, the attention of this Court was drawn to the judgment of this Court Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. N. Swaminathan and Ors. 2003 (1) CTC 33 : 2002 (4) LW 147, which reads as follows:
It will have to be borne in mind that Xerox copies will not always tally with the originals and we cannot rule out the possibility of any interpolation being made in the Xerox copies. In other words, Xerox copies being inferior in character vis-a-vis originals, the dispensation of filing of the originals can be considered only under exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of routine. Hence, no fault can be found with the perception of the Court below, while rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act.
Only in exceptional circumstances, only when the original is not available, in the interest of justice the Court can permit the party to file the Xerox copy. But in the instant, the original is very well available before the Trial Court. In order to avoid paying the Stamp duty penalty, the appellant herein cannot mark the Xerox copy to suit his convenience.
7. The appellant/tenant has not substantiated that any irreparable injury would be caused to him, in the event of non-marking of the Xerox copy of the document and I could find no illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, the order passed by the Court below is confirmed and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.