Dismissed

P.Raja v. C.Palani Andi

Madras HC11 Aug 2023CRP(MD)/997/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order allowing unregistered documents to be received in evidence. Relying on precedent, the court held receiving documents is procedural and admissibility is decided later. The court directed the lower court to dispose of the pending suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed; the lower court was directed to dispose of the pending suit within six months.

P.Raja Vs C.Palani Andi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.997 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.997 of 2019 and C.M.P(MD)No.5567 of 2019

¶7

P.Raja

¶8

...Petitioner/Respondent/ Plaintiff

¶9

Vs.

¶10

C.Palani Andi

¶11

...Respondent/Petitioner/ Defendant

¶12

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 12.04.2019 made in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.1288 of 2011 on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramsundar Vijayraj For M/s.Veera Associates

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Civil Revision Petition has been passed by the learned II

¶17

Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.1288 of 2011, dated 12.04.2019.

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

1/5

¶20

C.R.P(MD)No.997 of 2019

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the very

¶22

order passed by the Court below is erroneous, as the Court has permitted to receive the unregistered documents. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Manikannan Vs Sambandam reported in 2013-2-L.W.93 and would submit that unless the document is admissible in evidence, such document could not be received. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court about the list of documents. Wherein, they referred documents No.1 and 2, namely, the unregistered sale deeds and submits that since the unregistered sale deeds are inadmissible in evidence, even the receipt of the documents could not be ordered.

¶23

The learned counsel for the respondent would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs State of Gujarat and others reported in (2001) 3 SCC 1, and would contend that any objection to the admissibility of the document can only be decided while disposing of the suit finally, unless objection relates to deficiency in stamp. Even to decide the objection regarding deficiency in stamp, the documents needs to be received in evidence. He would also submit that the unstamped and unregistered sale deed can be looked into for collateral purpose.

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

2/5

¶26

C.R.P(MD)No.997 of 2019

¶27

Therefore, what would emerge from the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that unless the doucments received and marked with objection, the issue of admissibility cannot be adjudicated. The receipt of any documents in evidence would only be subject to proof and relevancy. Hence, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the Court below in receiving the petition mentioned documents subject to proof and relevancy is perfectly in order. Therefore, this Court does not want to interfere with the order of the Court below.

¶28

Considering the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the fact that the suit is pending for more than 10 years, this Court direct the Court below to dispose of the suit in O.S.No. 1288 of 2011 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶29

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed . No

¶30

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

11.08.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

3/5

¶34

C.R.P(MD)No.997 of 2019

¶35

¶36

1.The learned II Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli.

¶37

2.The Section Officer Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

4/5

¶40

C.R.P(MD)No.997 of 2019

¶41

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

¶42

¶43

C.R.P(MD)No.997 of 2019

¶44

11.08.2023

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

5/5

P.Raja v. C.Palani Andi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Raja v. C.Palani Andi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Jeyaraj, Vs K.v.Murugesan

K.Suyambuthurai Vs Sornam(Died) 1.Rajam

Lilly Saroja Vs Selvaraj

P.Senthilvel, Vs B.Kasirajan

Namazhwar, Vs Venkittammal

Pakkiam Alias Pakkialakshmi Vs Meenal