Dismissed

R.Govindarajan v. Venkatesan

Madras HC12 Dec 2018CRP/141/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging a docket order that rejected the marking of an unregistered document (Koorchit) during a Section 47 CPC enquiry. The court held that such documents should be produced in trial or appellate courts and not in execution proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition to set aside the docket order and direct marking of the Koorchit was dismissed.

R.Govindarajan Vs Venkatesan — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.12.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶6

C.R.P(NPD) No.141 of 2015
and
MP.No.1 of 2015
R.Govindarajan ..Petitioner
Vs
Venkatesan ..Respondent

¶7

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the Docket order of the Additional Sub Judge, dated 23.09.2014, in E.A.No. 94 of 2012 in E.P. No. 69 of 2008 rejecting the marking of the Koorchit as exhibit and direct the Hon'ble Additional Sub-Judge, Chengalpattu to mark the Koorchit dated 12.10.1947 as Ex-R1.

¶8

The order under challenge is a docket order passed when the petitioner attempted to mark an unregistered document during the course

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in of enquiry in his application filed under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code.

¶10

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the document intended to be marked is a koorchit. Though it is unregistered the same has been admitted by the respondent herein and as such the

¶12

Execution Court was not justified in denying permission to mark the document. The learned Counsel would further submit that such documents

¶13

are permissible for collateral purpose of establishing his rights over the

¶14

property.

¶15

In my view, such documents would always be available to be

¶16

produced before the trial Court or in the appellate Court in case, he challenges the Judgment and decree. Introducing such document in the enquiry under Section 47 CPC would only amount to re-litigating the entire issue in the suit, which is not permissible. Even otherwise, the admissibility of such unregistered document during enquiry under Section 47 CPC is not proper.

¶17

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶18

¶19

As a result, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by

¶20

the trial Court. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.

¶21

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.

¶22

12.12.2018
Index : Yes/No
vsn/dh
To
The Additional Subordinate Judge,
Chengalpattu,
Koorchit

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.S. RAMESH.J.,

vsn/dh

C.R.P(NPD) No.141 of 2015
and
MP.No.1 of 2015

¶28

12.12.2018

¶29

http://www.judis.nic.in

R.Govindarajan v. Venkatesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Govindarajan v. Venkatesan

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

R.Naveen Kumar Vs State of Tamilnadu

Rajaram Vs M.S.Kumar

V. Balasubramaniam Vs R. Marakutti

Kandasamy Vs K.Shanmugam

R. Raju Vs Smt. Maragatham

P. Murugasen Vs Mary Amalore Arulnanda