Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of an application seeking rejection and deletion of documents marked by the plaintiff's witness. The High Court dismissed the revision, agreeing with the Trial Court that objections to veracity are to be tested during cross-examination.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.07.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
CRP (PD) No.3465 of 2014 and MP No.1 of 2014
Sennaiyiulla Virudhunagar Hindu
Nadars'
Abiviruthi Dharma Fund
Rep. By its Secretary M.Nithyanandam ... Petitioner
Vs
S.A. V.M.V. Elangovan ... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed by the learned XVIII Assistant City Civil Court, Judge, Chennai in I.A. No.2082 of 2014 in O.S. No.4057 of 2009, dated 17.03.2014.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Muralikrishnan For Respondent : Mr.R.C.Manoharan
ORDER
The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17.03.2014 passed by the XVIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A. No.2082 of 2014 in O.S. No.4057 of 2009
2
Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2009 filed by the respondent seeking for the following reliefs :-
a) Directing the defendant to render and furnish a true and proper accounts of the defendant's society to the plaintiff from April 2005 till March 2009.
b) Mandatory Injunction directing the defendant to register the True and Proper Accounts and returns from April 2005 till March 2009 with the appropriate authority under whom it is registered.
c) and Temporary Ad-Interim.
and after framing of issues by the Court, trial also commenced. At that stage when the respondent's / plaintiff's side witness was examined and documents were marked on his side and it was posted
for cross examination of the respondent's side witness by the petitioner, the petitioner filed I.A. No.2082 of 2014 in O.S. No.4057 of
2009 under Section 151 CPC read with 94 (e) CPC, seeking for rejection and deletion of the documents marked as Exs. A3 to A17 through respondent's witness viz., PW1 in the suit O.S. No.4057 of 2009.
3
of India.
Discussion :
4
of Ex.A3, the said document is marked as document Ex.A3. As regards Exs. A4 to A8, A12, A17, the respondent (PW1), in his chief examination has deposed that those are the documents circulated by the petitioner which were received by him were produced by him before the Court. With regard to Exs. A9 to A11, A13, A14, A16, the Trial Court has observed that the said documents are copies of letters sent by the respondent to the petitioner and hence, the contention of the respondent that the respondent cannot have the original letter
with him, since the same was sent to the petitioner, has to be accepted.
5
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.07.2019
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
vsi2
To
The XVIII Assistant City Civil Court, Judge,
Chennai.
6
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2
CRP (PD)No.3465 of 2014
03.07.2019
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing the application for rejection and deletion of documents marked as evidence was sustainable under Article 227.
Sennaiyiulla Virudhunagar Hindu Nadars Abiviruthi Dharma Fund
S.A. V.M.V. Elangovan
ABDUL QUDDHOSE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
