In a defamation case, the defendant is entitled to take up the plea of justification of truth, and the trial Court should allow the defendant to adduce evidence to probabilize their defense.

Animadverting upon the order dated 010. 2007 passed by the learned District Munsif, Ariyalur in I.A.No.382 of 2007 in O.S.No.65 of 2005, this civil revision petition is focussed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice has been served on the respondent, no one represented.

3. A "resume" of facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:

The revision petitioner herein filed a defamation suit claiming damages as against the respondent. The trial also commenced. While so, the defendant filed I.A.No.382 of 2007 before the lower Court for reception of the following documents:

1. The Judgment in O.S.No.142 of 1989, Subordinate Judges Court at Ariyalur.

2. Copy of the complaint filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court at Jeyankondam

3. Wound Certificate of one Sumathi

4. Photos

5. Tax Receipts

6. Birth Certificate of one Suresh The trial Court allowed the application for reception of documents. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed on various grounds.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners, placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop her argument to the effect that the order of the lower court does not refer to the relevancy of those documents at all to the defamation suit but, simply allowed the interim application.

5. A bare perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant would exemplify and indicate that in the written statement itself in page No.2 at the last paragraph a reference to the complaint is found and only a copy of which is sought to be filed in the Court. The wound certificate and the Birth Certificate of one Suresh, it appears are relating to the complaint as well as the defence as found set out in the written statement.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the said first document referred to supra, viz., the certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.142 of 1989 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judges Court at Ariyalur, was already marked on the plaintiffs side. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that all those documents referred to in the interim application are having no relevance to the issue and not germane for adjudication.

7. At this juncture, my mind is reminiscent and redolent of the trite proposition of law that the defendant who is a party to a lis, should be given due opportunity to file documents, unless there are sound reasons for rejecting the same. In this case, the lower Court in its discretion thought fit to allow the petition so as to give due opportunity to the defendant to adduce evidence, in support of his contention justifying his stand as against the plaintiff. In a defamation case, the defendant is entitled to take up the plea of justification of truth and only to probabilise his defence he has chosen to file those documents.

8. Hence, in these circumstances, no interference with the order of the trial Court is required.

9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners would make an extempore submission that the petitioners might be given an opportunity to object to the same on the ground that those are all not relevant documents for deciding the issue.

10. I call up and recollect the decision of the Honble Apex Court reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1158 (Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat and another). An excerpt from it would run thus:

"13. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the Court finds at the final stag