IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 24.11.2008
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice S.RAJESWARAN
C.R.P.(PD) No.1893 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
A.Soundararajan ... Petitioner
Vs.
P.Thangavel ... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition has been filed Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 10.04.2008 passed in I.A.No.1546 of 2007 in O.S.No.3 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif, Udumalpet.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Bharadhidasan
For Respondent : Mr.M.N.Balakrishnan
****
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 10.04.2008 passed in I.A.No.1546 of 2007 in O.S.No.3 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif, Udumalpet.
2. The defendant in O.S.No.3 of 2006 is the revision petitioner before this court. The suit in O.S.No.3 of 2006 has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with interest. Written statement has been filed by the petitioner/defendant and the suit is being contested. Pending suit, an application in I.A.No.1546 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner/defendant to mark the Video C.D. which according to the defendant is a vital piece of evidence. The said application was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff by filing a counter. The trial court by order dated 10.04.2008 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. This Court on 20.06.2008 ordered notice and granted interim stay. The respondent/plaintiff has entered appearance through counsel.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through documents filed in support of their submissions.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest. The case of the defendant/revision petitioner is that he borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the respondent/ plaintiff and given a blank promissory note to the respondent/plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendant settled the amount in the year 1999, but the respondent failed to return the promissory note. But, the defendant’s uncle borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the respondent and to recover the same, the promissory note given by the defendant earlier was used by the respondent now and filed the suit. He adds that on 26.6.2007, the defendant and his brother went to the respondent’s house for a settlement, at that time, the respondent himself admitted that the above suit was filed only to recover the money paid to defendant’s uncle Palanisamy. It is submitted that the entire conversation has been recorded by the defendant in a Video and hence it has become a valid piece of evidence to prove that no consideration was passed to the defendant on the promissory note. According to him, this piece of evidence recorded in Video CD is very relevant to decide the issue that has arisen in the suit. Further, the learned counsel would submit that the above said fact was mentioned in the written statement as well as the additional written statement also. Therefore, to bring on record the evidence recorded in the Video CD, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.1546 of 2007 under Sec.65-B of the Evidence Act, to mark the above said Video CD. But, on the objection raised by the respondent/plaintiff, the trial court on a thorough misconception of facts and law, dismissed the application holding that the allegations of the petitioner/defendant in respect of Video CD has not been mentioned in the additional written statement. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the Video CD cannot be taken as a piece of evidence to decide the issues in the suit. Therefore, according to him, the trial court has rightly rejected the application which cannot be interfered with by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. I am unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff.
8. In a suit for recovery of money, wherein the petitioner/defendant refutes the allegations levelled by the respondent/plaintiff, the video C.D. which has recorded the conversation held on 26.6.2007 between the defendant and the plaintiff is important piece of evidence to disprove the case of the plaintiff. Further, according to the defendant, in the recordings in the Video C.D., the respondent/plaintiff himself has clearly admitted that the above suit has been filed only to recover the money paid to the defendant’s uncle Palanisamy. Thus, entire conversation which has been recorded is a relevant piece of evidence for adjudication of the suit for recovery of money filed against the defendant. Moreover, as per Sec.65-B, a Video CD can be taken on record as evidence and the same could be looked into at the time of trial and it is open to the respondent/plaintiff to raise all his objections Therefore, the order passed by the trial court in I.A.No.1546 of 2007 in O.S.No.3 of 2006 is wrong and liable to be set aside.
9. In the result, the Civil Revision petition is allowed. No cost. Connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
24.11.2008
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vaan
To
The District Munsif, Udumalpet.
S.RAJESWARAN,J.
vaan
CRP(PD)No.1893 of 2008
and M.P.No.1 of 2008
24.11.2008
C.R.P.(NPD) No.1239 of 2007
29-11-2007