Statement of witnesses recorded in a criminal case cannot be recorded in toto.

(Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 16.10.2003 and 06.04.2005 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatti in I.A.No.193 of 2003 and I.A.No.82 of 2005 respectively in O.S.No.70 of 1996, as stated therein.)

C.R.P.No.148 of 2004 is preferred against the Order dated 16.10.2003 of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatti in I.A.No.193 of 2003 in O.S.No.70 of 1996, dismissing the Application filed under Or.XIII R.10(1) and (2) C.P.C read with Rule 74(1) and (2) of Civil Rules of Practice declining to send for the documents pertaining to M.C.No.6 of 1991 said to be available in Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2001 on the file of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

2. C.R.P.No.441 of 2005:- This Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 06.04.2005 of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatti in I.A.No.82 of 2005 in O.S.No.70 of 1996, dismissing the Application under Section 151 C.P.C filed by the Revision Petitioners / Defendants seeking permission of the Court to mark the deposition of the witnesses in M.C.No.6 of 1991.

3. For better appreciation of the Parties of the Applications and other contentious points, it is necessary to trace the previous litigations between the Landlord and Tenant, who are entangled in several rounds of litigation, which has lead to the Murder of the Landlord – First Defendant.

4. M.C.No.6 of 1991:- Wet Land to an extent of about 25 acres is the subject matter of the dispute between the parties. It is stated that the First Defendant was in enjoyment of the Property as the absolute owner of the Suit Property. According to the Plaintiffs, the lands were leased to the Plaintiffs about 15 years ago on Oral Agreement both for reclaiming uncultivable portion and for cultivating the lands, which were already reclaimed on rental basis. The Defendants have alleged that they have taken possession of the properties as per the Surrender Deed dated 16.06.1991. It is said to have been executed by Plaintiffs 1 to 3. On the basis of the said Surrender Deed, it is alleged that the Plaintiffs have handed over the possession of the lands to the First Defendant. There was proceeding under Sec.145 Cr.P.C between the parties in M.C.No.6 of 1991 before the Executive Magistrate Court, Periyakulam in respect of the Suit Properties. The Executive Magistrate held enquiry and upon examination of the parties and witnesses held by order dated 19.07.1993 that the First Defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the said properties.

5. As against the order passed by the Executive Magistrate in M.C.NO.6 of 1991, the Plaintiffs have preferred Crl.R.C.No.510 of 1993. Both in M.C.No.6 of 1991 and in the Criminal Revision Proceedings, the Plaintiffs have denied the genuineness of the alleged Surrender Deed dated 16.06.1991. Confirming the order of the Executive Magistrate Court in Crl.R.C.No.510 of 1993, the High Court has observed that "...if at all any grievance is available to the Revision Petitioners, it is always open to them to work out their remedy in a Court of law on the basis of Ex.P.1.(the alleged surrender deed dated 16.06.1991)....".

6. O.S.No.70 of 1996:- After the disposal of the Crl.R.C.No.510 of 1993, the Plaintiffs have filed the Suit for Declaration that they are the cultivating Tenants of the Suit Properties entitled to the protection of Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act and consequently directing the Defendants to deliver the Suit Properties to the Plaintiffs and also for damages and for wrong use and occupation by the Defendants. According to the Plaintiffs, the alleged Surrender Deed dated 16.06.1991 is a fabricated one, which might have been concocted misusing the signatures of Plaintiffs 1 to 3. The Plaintiffs have not executed the alleged Surrender Deed. The Plaintiffs have never surrendered or delivered possession of the Suit Property. The order of the Execut