IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:07.01.2009 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(PD).2556 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 Saroja ... Petitioner vs. T. Raja ... Respondent This civil revision petition is preferred against the order dated 27.03.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Dharmapuri in I.A.No.8 of 2008 in O.S.No.8 of 2008. For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy For Respondent : Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan ORDER
Animadverting upon the order dated 27.03.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Dharmapuri in I.A.No.8 of 2008 in O.S.No.8 of 2008, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this revision petition as stood exposited from the records as well as the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:
The revision petitioner is the first plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.8 of 2008, which is one for partition. The plaintiffs have adduced evidence and closed their side. Whereupon the defendant entered upon their defence and at that time without earlier filing the alleged registered “Will” and other documents along with the written statement, he sought to file them belatedly and the Court also allowed them to be filed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition has been filed on various grounds.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would develop his argument to the effect that as per Order 8 Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant is bound to file the documents along with the written statement; if for any reason, the documents have not been filed earlier, then with the leave of the Court alone, the same could be filed by citing sufficient reasons; after closing of the plaintiff’s side, if the defendant is permitted to file such documents, certainly, the plaintiff would be prejudiced and hence, the order of the lower Court should be set aside.
4. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would develop his argument to the effect that the said documents are registered “Will”; and other related documents as under:-
———————————————————————–
1. 18/12/2003 TN-29-L-2929 ngUe;jpd; gh;kpl; khWjy; cj;jut[ efy;
2/ 22/6/2004 TN-29-L-2929 ngUe;jpd; gh;kpl; khWjy; cj;jut[ efy;
3/ 17/01/1997 TNT jpiuau’;f @C” got chpkk; bgah; khw;wk;
bra;jjw;fhd khtl;l Ml;rpahpd; bray;Kiwfs; efy; 4/ //// TNT jpiuau';fj;jpw;fhd @C@ gotk; efy; 5/ 21/11/2005 ed;bfhil Vw;ghl;L Mtzk; efy; 6/ ////// SBI t';fp gh!; g[j;jfk; mry; 7/ ////// ,e;jpad; t';fp gh!; g[j;jfk; mry; 8/ ///// Xl;Leh; chpkk; efy; 9/ 16/04/2003 jPh;j;jfphp ft[z;lh;. 1 k; gpujpthjpapd; bgahpy; vGjpf; bfhLj;j capy; rhrdk; mry; -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A reference to them were made in the written statement and more so, even earlier to the filing of the suit and they are not a concocted documents or cooked up ones, which were sought to be filed before the Court.
6. In this factual matrix, I am of the view that the suit being a partition suit, and the documents happened to be a Registered “Will” and other public documents, depriving the defendant from relying the same would prejudice the case of the defendant. However, this Court cannot lose sight of one important fact that those documents were filed after the plaintiff having closed his side. In such a case, copies of the documents should be furnished to the plaintiff by the defendant for deeply scrutinising the same and to adduce additional evidence, both oral and documentary, if any.
7. Hence, in these circumstances, this revision petition is disposed of with a direction that the defendant on receipt of a copy of this order shall furnish copies of those documents, which he filed in Court to the plaintiff. Whereupon, after closing of the defendant’s side, the plaintiff shall be given due opportunity to adduce additional evidence in this regard and thereafter, if the defendant makes a prayer for adducing further evidence, the same be considered on merits by the lower court. The trial Court shall also do well to see that the suit is disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
vj2 07.01.2009 Index :Yes Internet:Yes To The Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Dharmapuri G.RAJASURIA,J vj2 C.R.P.(PD).2556 of 2008 07.01.2009