The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles for the admissibility of documents, including the requirement for documents to be relevant and free from discrepancies and contradictions.

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the decretal order dated 28.06.2005 made in I.A.No.607 of 2005 in O.S.No.285 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kangeyam.)

Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 28.06.2005 made in I.A.No.607 of 2005 in O.S.No.285 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kangeyam. refusing to receive certain documents pending disposal of the suit.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Civil Revision Petition are as follows:

(i) The petitioner/plaintiff claiming himself as the elected President of Sivanmalai Viswakarma Samuthaya Nala Sangam has filed a suit for direction to the respondents/defendants to handover the suit schedule property, accounts books and other records of the Sivanmalai Viswakarma Samuthaya Nala Sangam within a particular date to be fixed by the Court.

(ii) The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that the Society is registered for the welfare of Viswakarma community. The Sangam acquired a vacant site on 24.08.1998 to construct a building for its benefit. Later on, a building was also constructed out of the funds collected from the members of the community. The rental and other income derived from the building were not properly accounted for and that the annual returns were not submitted to the Registrar of Societies in accordance with law. The President was very old and therefore, he was not in a position to bestow his personal attention in the day-to-day affairs of the Sangam. The Vice-President, the Secretary and other members of the Committee took a hostile attitude. In view of the mal-administration of the Society, a general body meeting was convened and a resolution was passed, electing the petitioner/plaintiff as the President of the Society. Thiru.M.Lingappa Asari was elected as the Vice-President and other office bearers were also elected. The erstwhile office bearers were called upon to handover the minutes, accounts and other records pertaining to the Sangam.

(iii) Since, the previous office bearers did not handover the records pertaining to the Sangam, a police complaint was given to the Kangeyam Police for taking possession of the building and for return of records. Thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit, calling upon the defendants to surrender possession of the property and for other records.

(iv) The second respondent/second defendant for himself and on behalf of other defendants filed a written statement and contended that Krishnamoorthy, the petitioner herein is not even eligible to become an ordinary member of the Sangam. The plaintiff/petitioner is a permanent resident of Coimbatore and as per clause 10(A)(1), persons belonging to Viswakarma community of Kangeyam, Sivanmalai and its outskirts, carrying on business in jewellery or wood work are alone eligible to become members of the Sangam. He further contended that the election said to have taken place on 21.09.2003 is not in accordance with law and the provisions of the bye-law and that, the procedure contemplated has not been followed. Therefore, the election is illegal. Under such circumstances, the office bearers, who are said to be newly elected have no right to seek for possession of the building minutes, accounts books and other records. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(v) Before the Lower Court, the newly elected President, namely, Krishnamoorthy filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. to condone the delay in filing the documents and to receive the same. In his affidavit, he has stated that due to the delay in tracing out the documents from his Sangam Office, he was not able to produce the documents annexed to the petition, when he was examined. On receipt of the documents, he seeks permission to produce the same before the Court.

(vi) The application was resisted by respondents/defendants on the grounds that the documents referred to in