The court emphasized the discretion to accept documents and the duty to exclude irrelevant evidence, finding that rejection of an admitted document on grounds of irregularity was improper.

This revision is directed against the fair and decretal order made by the learned District Munsif, Sirkali, dated 23.6.2003 in I.A.No.279/2003 in O.S.No.435/ 1995, allowing the petition filed under Or.13, R.3 and 6, rejecting Ex.A-9 - Chitta extract, which has already been admitted through DW-4.

2. Facts necessitated for this revision could briefly be stated thus:-

Suit O.S.No.435/1995 relates to S.No.125/2 - Punja 0.09.0 Hectare, equivalent to about 27 cents. Case of the Plaintiff is that the suit property is the ancestral property and the Plaintiff has inherited the same from his father Ragava Naidu. After the death of his father, the Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by raising punja crops, coconut and mango trees. The Plaintiff has been paying the kist receipts. The Defendants have no manner of right in the suit property. When the Plaintiff attempted to mend the fence, the Defendants have prevented him from carrying out any repairs in the suit property. Hence the Plaintiff has filed the suit for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from in any manner causing interference to his possession and enjoyment.

3. Denying the averments in the plaint, D-2 and D-10 have filed Written Statement contending that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property to an extent of 22 cents. According to the Defendants, they are in possession of S.No.125/1 wherein they have put up brick klin, along with S.No.125/1. The Defendants are in enjoyment of the suit property in S.No.125/2. Even if the Plaintiff has got any right in the suit property, the same is lost by ouster. The Defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for a continuous period of more than 28 years and have perfected title by way of adverse possession also. The UDR Patta alleged by the Plaintiff must have been obtained by fraudulent means and the same has no binding effect on the Defendants' enjoyment of the suit property.

4.I.A.No.279/2001:-

This application was filed under Or.13 R.3 and 6 to reject Ex.A-9 Patta Adangal already marked through PW-4. Ex.A-9 is the Chitta issued by Village Administrative Officer. Earlier an application was filed to recall PW-1 to mark the chitta was dismissed by the Court. While so, it is alleged that the Plaintiff has colluded with D-7 and has clandestinely marked Ex.A-9 by examining D-7 as DW-4 during his cross examination. Ex.A-9 was happened to be marked when the Defendant's counsel was not in Court. The Defendants came to know about the same only on 4.4.2003. Since the document has been admitted, the petition was filed praying that Ex-9 is liable to be rejected.

5. Opposing the application, the Plaintiff has filed the Written Statement contending that it is the duty of the Defendants and their Advocate to be present at the time of cross examination of the defence witness. Plaintiff and their Advocate were not diligent in defending their case. Ex.A-9 having been admitted, D-10 is precluded from questioning the admissibility of the document.

6. Upon consideration of the contentions of both parties, the learned District Munsif has allowed the application rejecting Ex.A-9 already marked. Pointing out the dismissal of the earlier application to recall PW-1 to mark Ex.A-9, the learned District Munsif has found that marking of Ex.A-9 during the cross examination of DW-4 is improper. Finding that marking of Ex.A-9 was not in accordance with the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, the learned District Munsif has allowed the application and rejected Ex.A-9 under Or.13 R.3 CPC.

7. Aggrieved over the allowing of the petition in I.A.No.279/2003 and rejecting Ex.A-9 Chitta, which has already been admitted, the revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has preferred this revision.

8. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the lower Court having admitted the documents was not right in rejecting the document Ex.A-9. Contending that under Or.13, R.3 that a docu