ORDER: Defendant in O.S. No.572 of 1997 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Karur, has preferred the present revision petition aggrieved against the fair and decretal order dated 30.3.2001 made in I.A. No.212 of 2000.

2. The case in brief is as follows: The defendant in the suit filed a petition under Sec.145 of the Evidence Act and under Sec.151 of Civil Procedure Code to mark the portion of the admission of the second plaintiff in O.S. No.640 of 19994 on the file of District Munsif Court, Karur and also the judgment in the suit as well as the Commissioner’s report filed in that suit.

3. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for permanent injunction. The Ist plaintiff already filed another suit in O.S. No.292 of 1998. There was already another suit in O.S. No.640 of 1994, in which the 2nd plaintiff herein ws also examined as one of the witnesses and the certified copy of the deposition given by him is now filed. He was examined as P.W.3 in that case. Even in the chief-examination, he admitted that there is a east-west kavar immediately on the north of the property i.e., S.F.No.740. Now, when the 2nd plaintiff was examined in the present case, he gave an evasive reply that he was not aware. The certified copy of the deposition has to be marked. Similarly, the judgment and Advocate Commissioner’s Report and plain in O.S. No.640 of 1994 also have to be marked in the present suit.

4. The respondents/ plaintiffs opposed the application on the ground that the plaintiffs were not parties in O.S. No.640 of 1994 and the certified copies in the other proceedings cannot be marked straightaway without examining the parties relating to the same. It is false to state that the 2nd plaintiff had admitted the existence of east-west kavar and also admitted the Commissioner’s report. It is settled provision of law that the report of the Commissioner in one suit cannot form part of record in another suit, without examination of Commissioner and marking report through him. The judgment cannot be marked in this case since it is inadmissible in evidence. The recitals in a judgment like finding given in appreciation of evidence made or arguments or genealogies referred to in the judgment, would be wholly inadmissible in a case, where neither the plaintiff nor the defendants were parties. The petition is highly speculative and mala fide one. If it is allowed, they will be put to much loss and hardship.

5. The trial Court after hearing the parties, dismissed the application and aggrieved against this, the defendant has come forward with the present revision petition.

6. The points that arise for consideration are:

(1) Whether the order passed by the Court below is proper and correct?

(2) Whether the copy of the Commissioner’s report, copy of the judgment and the copy of deposition in O.S. No.640 of 1994 on the file of District Munsif Court, Karur, can be marked in the present suit?

(3) To what relief?

7.Points: The plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction relating to the suit property. The defendant in the suit filed a petition under Sec.145 of the Evidence Act and also under Sec.151 of Civil Procedure Code for reception and marking of three documents, namely, (1) certified copy of the deposition given by the 2nd plaintiff herein as P.W.3 in O.S. No.640 of 1994, (2) copy of the judgment in the said suit, and (3) copy of the report and plan filed by the Commissioner in the very same suit. The respondents/ plaintiffs opposed the application. The trial Court dismissed the application. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ defendant contended that there can be no objection to mark the Commissioner’s report and plan in the earlier proceedings, which relate to the suit properties in which the petitioner is a party and is entitled to rely upon the same. The certified copy of the judgment in which the petitioner is also a party can be received in evidence by examining the petitioner as a party. The 2nd respondent herein has admitted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document