The revision is directed by the fifth defendant, against the order passed by the Court below in permitting the first respondent/plaintiff to file additional documents.
2. It is seen that the plaintiff has listed twelve documents in all and the document Nos.1,3,4,5, 6 and 9 are permitted to be filed and the other documents are refused as they are only secondary evidence. The objection of the revision petitioner is that the documents sought to be marked are all post suit documents and the application itself is taken up after a lapse of a year, when the suit is posted for framing of issues. It is further contended that the documents are sought to be marked only in I.A.No.5912 of 2015, which is an injunction application and according to the revision petitioner, this application has become infructuous. However, the same has not been closed and it is pending.
3. Be that as it may, the Trial Court has permitted the plaintiff only a few of the documents to be marked in evidence. It is made clear that those documents shall be marked by the Trial Court subject to their proof, relevancy and admissibility, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2001-3-SCC-1 (Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and another). The objection, if any, that may be raised by the revision petitioner/fifth defendant in this regard may be recorded by the Trial Court and the same may be considered, at the time of arguments.
4. With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 07.02.2017 vj2 Index: yes/No Internet: yes PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J., vj2 To The IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai CRP PD No.4006 of 2016 07.02.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in