Pushpam followed Hinduism. The case of the plaintiff that the marriage of Lilly Pushpam and Narayanan was solemnised in a Church was also disputed by the first defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.847 of 2011 to play the Marriage CD of the first defendant herself to show that the entire marriage was solemnised by the said Lilly Pushpam following all the Hindu rites and ceremonies. It is further stated that the document will have some relevance to the case pleaded by the first defendant. The learned Judge allowed the application by a cryptic order without much discussion. The first defendant also filed another application in I.A.No.846 of 2011 to recall D.W.1 to mark the document. It is seen from the order in I.A.No.846 of 2011 that the additional District Munsif Court, Karur, has passed an elaborate order allowing the said application. Since reasons are stated in the order passed in I.A.No.846 of 2011, the learned District Munsif without discussing elaborately the issues that were raised by the revision petitioner objecting to the marking of the CD, allowed I.A.No.847 of 2011. Having regard to the factual issues raised by the parties, this Court is of the view that the document relied upon by the respondent is relevant to decide an issue that arise for consideration in the suit. The CD that was relied upon by the defendant may not be a direct evidence and this Court has not seen the information or message that can be read or conveyed by such CD. At this stage, the contention of the defendant with regard to its relevance cannot be ignored. No prejudice is going to be caused to the plaintiff by producing the document which according to the respondent throw some light to advance his defence in the main suit. The question of relevance cannot be decided finally at this stage and therefore, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner cannot harp much on the issue that the learned Additional District Munsif has not elaborately discussed the points raised. No revision is filed against the order in I.A.No.846 of 2011.
