These revisions are preferred against the order dated 19.2.2001, made in I.A.Nos.16843 and 16486/2000 in O.S.No. 9054/1996, by the V Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, allowing the applications filed under Or.13, R.3 and 6 CPC r/w Sec.151 CPC, deleting Ex.A.14. Plaintiff – Jayalakshmi Trading Company is the Revision Petitioner.

2. C.S.No.1040/1992 – Original Side, High Court Madras.

Transferred to the City Civil Court, Chennai and renumbered as O.S.No.954/1996:-

The first Defendant is the absolute owner of the property bearing Door No.4, III Street, Balaji Nagar, Madras-14. The Defendants 1 and 3 approached the Plaintiff for financial loan for promoting multi-storeyed building in the above said property. The Defendants agreed to pay the interest regularly and they offered to pay the money back by constructing and selling flats to the prospective purchasers. Borrowing a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- the Defendants have executed Promissory Notes on various dates. In security for the loan, the Defendants have also executed a Memorandum of Agreement on 12.02.1990 in favour of Plaintiff and deposited the Title-Deeds creating equitable mortgage over the above said property. The Defendants are liable to pay Rs.7,32,800/-. Hence the Plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs.7,32,800/- with subsequent interest and hand over the constructed plaint schedule properties to be sold and to adjust the sale proceeds towards the amount payable.

3. Trial commenced in the suit. Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked. Partner of the Plaintiff firm was examined as PW-1. He was further examined on 14.09.2000 and on the subsequent dates, Exs.A-9 to A-14 were marked. Exs.A-9 to A-13 are the Documents of Title. Ex.A-14 is the Memorandum of Agreement.

4. I.A.Nos.16843 and 16846/2000:-

These applications were filed under Or.13 R.3 and 6 CPC r/w Sec.151 CPC to reject Exs.A-1 to A-14 as inadmissible in evidence. According to the Defendants - D-15 and D-4 to D-12, the documents are inadmissible in evidence. The suit was filed on the strength of deposit of Title-Deeds made by the Defendants and the same is also supported by a Memorandum of Agreement. The Plaintiff was examined in part; he filed an application for condonation of delay in I.A.No.4685/2000 to deposit the Title-Deeds and the original Registration Certificate of the Firm. The same was allowed on 04.07.2000. According to the Defendants, Ex.A-14 is not a memorandum merely recording the deposit of Title-Deeds. It represents bargain of contract between the parties and the same has been reduced to writing and the documents by itself is a partition document, which needs registration and the same is inadmissible in evidence. Exs.A.11 to A.13 are the Title-Deeds which form part of Ex.A-14 and hence those documents are irrelevant and the same cannot be marked. These applications have been filed for setting aside the marking of documents Exs.A.11 to A.14.

5. Resisting the application, the Plaintiff Firm has filed the counter statement contending that the suit was filed for recovery of money on the basis of equitable mortgage. When the order of injunction was in force, the Defendants - D-15 and D-4 to D-12 have purchased the property and had their sale-deeds executed at their own risk and responsibility. Knowing fully well the legal implications, they purchased the property during the pendency of proceedings. Respondents have been examined in part and at that time, Application I.A.No.4685/2000 was filed and the Court had allowed the application permitting the Petitioner to produce the document subject to proof and relevancy. The Defendants cannot prevent the Plaintiff from adducing oral evidence regarding deposit of Title-Deeds. Ex.A-14 is the Memorandum for deposit of Title-Deeds, which is admissible in evidence. According to the Plaintiff, once the evidence has been recorded and the documents marked in the presence of junior counsel appearing for the Defendants, the Defendants cannot raise any objection on the d