Dismissed

Kavin Mary v. Domnic Xavier James

Madras HC21 Mar 2017CMP(MD)/2652/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and an application under Section 151 CPC, holding the trial court's reasoning unobjectionable regarding documentary evidence and dispensing with production unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed at the SR stage; the application to dispense with production of the decretal order was not entertained as the revision was the SR.

Kavin Mary Vs Domnic Xavier James — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.03.2017 CORAM :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

C.M.P(MD)No.2652 of 2017 in C.R.P(MD) No.SR1632 of 2017

¶5

Kavin Mary

¶6

... Petitioner/Petitioner Vs.

¶7

1.Dominic Xavier James

¶8

... Respondent/Respondent

¶9

PRAYER IN CMP: The Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to dispense with the production of decreetal order dated 21.11.2016 in I.A.NO.59 of 2015 in I.D.O.P.No.115 of 2014 on the file of the 1^st Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.

¶10

PRAYER in CRP: The Civil Revision Petition filed under the Article 227 of Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 21.11.2016 passsed in I.A.No.59 of 2015 in I.D.O.P.No.115 of 2014 on the file of 1^st Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Anandha Kumar

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This application is filed to dispense with the production of decreetal order dated 21.11.2016 in I.A.No.59 of 2015 in I.D.O.P.No.115 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on records.

¶15

The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that in the matrimonial proceedings, two documents, which are admitted as Ex.A6 and A7 marked through P.W.1/husband are not admissible in evidence, since pw1 is not the author of the documents. However, the trial Court had rejected the application filed by the petitioner to struck of the said evidence.

¶16

3.It is further submitted that while filing the revision petition, the petitioner is unable to get the decreetal order copy and therefore, he seeks indulgence of this court to dispense with the production of the original decreetal order and take up the revision petition.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

4.This Court, on perusal of the impugned order against which revision is sought for, finds the main petition is not

¶19

¶20

sustainable for the following reasons:

¶21

Exs.P-6 and P-7 were marked through the respondent herein, who was examined as P.W.1. The letter alleged to be written by the revision petitioner to Parish Priest is Ex.P-6 and the copy of the complaint alleged to have been written by the counsel for the respondent herein to the District Judge on 04.07.2012 alleging that he was assaulted by the petitioner's counsel is Ex.P-7. The trial court after considering the contests of these two documents has held that the relevancy and truthfulness of these two documents can be considered on conclusion of the trial and it is not appropriate for the present to struck off the exhibits when the matter is posted for cross examination of P.W.1. further, the trial court has also observed that if Ex.P-6 was not written by the revision petitioner, she can very well discredit the letter when she is examined or by summoning the Parish Priest to whom it is addressed.

¶22

5.This court does not find any unreasonableness in the reasoning given by the trial court in its order dated 21.11.2016 made in I.A.No.59/2015. When, it is always open to the revision petitioner to disprove the contents of Exs.P-6 and P-7 in the manner known to law, mere admitting the documents as Exhibits subject to proof and relevancy and assigning exhibit numbers is in consonance with the direction of the superior Court.

¶23

6.Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the order of the lower court. Hence, no need to entertain this civil revision petition. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed in the SR stage itself. No costs.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(Records)

¶26

/True Copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

1^st Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.N.Anandakumar,Advocate,SR.16281

¶31

C.M.P(MD)No.2652 of 2017 in C.R.P(MD) No.SR1632 of 2017 21.03.2017

¶32

TA/SM https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ kk/MR/04.05.2017-2P-3C

Kavin Mary v. Domnic Xavier James

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavin Mary v. Domnic Xavier James

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jothiraj, Vs Jayasreekumar

Manojkumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Vinoth Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Meenakshi Sundaram (Died) Vs M.Selvaraj (Died)

K.Karuthammal, F/67 Vs R.Kasammal, F/57

Nijamudeen Vs the Inspector of Police