Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.Mr.V.P.Raman, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the lease agreement in original was allegedly filed along with the plaint originally before this Court. Thereafter, the suit has been transferred to the file of the Commercial Court, Egmore, Chennai. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the original lease agreement was not marked, however, during cross-examination of DW1, the witness was confronted with a photostat copy of the said lease agreement dated 01.01.2005 and since the witness admitted the document, the trial Court has proceeded to mark the same. Subsequently, the present application in I.A.No.5 of 2025 has been taken up for unmarking the said photocopy of an unstamped and unregistered lease deed, which has been marked as Ex.A14 and also to consequently eschew the evidence insofar as Ex.A14 is concerned. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 01:17:39 pm )

7.Per contra, Mr.Arvind Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel for respondent would state that the revision petitioner has admitted to the factum of having been inducted as a tenant under the said lease deed dated 11.01.2005 and the revision petitioner was put in possession of the tenanted premises and the plaintiff wants to rely upon the said lease deed. According to Mr.Arvind Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, it is only a collateral purpose for which the lease deed is sought to be relied on and there is no bar, especially when DW1 himself has admitted to the execution of the said lease deed, pursuant to which alone, the document was marked as Ex.A14. He would further state that since the original is available and the trial Court has directed the ascertainment of the deficit stamp duty and penalty, by impounding the same and the plaintiff also willing to pay the said amount, no prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioner, if the said lease deed is received in evidence. He would also state that eschewing the evidence is not permissible as sought for by the revision petitioner, since the witness had admitted to the relationship between the parties and also the execution of the lease deed as well. He would further state that there is no provision under the Evidence Act for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 01:17:39 pm ) eschewing evidence which has already come on record and he would therefore seek for suitable directions to be issued in this regard.

37.As regards eschewing the evidence pertaining to Ex.A14, this Court in Subair Banu's case as well as Dr.Sundar v. State of Tamil Nadu, has held that there is no provision to eschew a evidence that had already come on record and that the evidentiary value of such evidence would depend upon facts and circumstances of the case and the Court cannot scrap the evidence, but only consider the same, along with the other available evidence.

38.Even under BSA, I do not find any new provision introduced for eschewing the evidence which has already come on record in a judicial proceeding. This Court has also consistently held that evidence which has already been recorded cannot be eschewed. In the light of the above, I am not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 01:17:39 pm ) inclined to accept the second part of the prayer seeking eschewing evidence pertaining to the unregistered lease deed, Ex.A14. In fact, D.W.1 has already been examined and he has spoken about the lease and other attending circumstances. Therefore, merely because Ex.A14 is being directed to be unmarked, the oral evidence which has come on record need not be necessarily eschewed. However, at the same time, it is needless to state that the trial Court is not obliged to look into such of the evidence which pertains to Ex.A14 which is being directed to be unmarked and the trial Court shall decide the probative value of the evidence on record, at the time of delivering judgment.