This revision is directed against the order dated 10.02.2003 passed in E.A.No.3240/2002 in E.A.No.5223/2001 in E.P.No.1475/1998 in O.S.No.271/1986 by the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.

2. The second Respondent - Judgment Debtor is the Revision Petitioner. Respondent is Canara Bank, Thiruvotiyur Branch, hereinafter referred as Plaintiff Bank.

3. For better appreciation of the points urged in the revision, it is necessary to trace the filing of the Suit O.S.No.271/1986 and E.P.No.1475/1998 and other applications.

The deceased first Defendant M.S.Vakil is the Proprietrix of M/s.Suresh Electronics. She has availed OCC Facility by way of working capital to M/s.Suresh Electronics. Her son Suresh S.Vakil, who is the second Judgment Debtor stood as Guarantor for the due repayment of the said loan. The creditors committed default in repayment of the loans. Hence the Plaintiff Bank has filed O.S.No.271/1986 to recover a sum of Rs.47,786.56/- with further interest at 16.5% p.a. The suit was decreed against the deceased M.S.Vakil as well as her son Suresh S.Vakil on 18.2.1987. To recover a sum of Rs.1,57,703.50/-, E.P.No. 1475/1998 was filed by the Plaintiff/Bank for attachment of movables belonging to the Judgment Debtors.

4. E.A.No.5222/2001 and E.A.No.5223/2001 :-

The second Judgment Debtor/Guarantor Suresh S.Vakil and his sons and daughters have filed these applications under Section 47 CPC to enquire, decide and determine the correctness of the decree in O.S.No.271/1986 and to declare that the decree is absolutely null and void and not executable.

5. E.A.No.3240/2002 in E.A.No.5223/2001

This application was filed trying to mark the certified copy of the Adjudication Order in I.P.No.27/1986 dated 11.4.1986, as one of the Exhibit on the side of the Respondents. According to the Respondents, the second Judgment Debtor - Suresh S.Vakil has been declared insolvent by the High Court. According to the Respondents, the order in I.P.No.27/1986 is a Public Document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act and the document is to be admitted as a public document. Further according to the Petitioners, under section 65(c) when the document is a public document certified copy has to be accepted as a secondary evidence and it is not necessary to produce the original or examine the author of the document.

6. Resisting the application, the Plaintiff/Bank has filed the Counter Statement contending that the application has been filed with a view to prolong the execution proceedings. It is alleged that while the Revision Petitioner has deposed evidence as PW-1, an attempt was made to mark the order passed in I.P.No.27/1986 which was seriously objected by the Respondent counsel. On such objection, the Judgment Debtors were not permitted to file the document on the ground that the Revision Petitioner is not a party to the suit proceeding. It was only thereafter, the Revision Petitioner has taken out an application praying the Court to mark the certified copy of the order of adjudication in I.P.No.27/ 1986. The application is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further, it is alleged that the Respondents have been directed to furnish copy of the adjudication order to enable them to file an elaborate counter, which was also not complied with.

7. Upon consideration of contentions of both parties, the learned Assistant Judge has dismissed the application finding that in I.P.No.27/1986, the Respondents were not parties. The learned Judge found that such an order of adjudication has been obtained against the second Judgment Debtor Suresh S.Vakil and that the same cannot be admitted in evidence in E.A.No.5223/2001 wherein the Judgment Debtors 3 to 5 are the Petitioners in the application under section 47 CPC.

8. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the petition declining to admit the adjudication order in I.P.No.27/1986, the Revision Petitioners have preferred this revision.

9. Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for t