1. These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the fair and decreetal order dated 16.02.2010 of the learned Additional District Judge – cum – Fast Track Judge No.2 at Poonamallee made in I.A.Nos.44 of 2010 and 1642 of 2009 in O.S.No.166 of 2004.

2. I.A.No.44 of 2010 was filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.166 of 2004 to recall PW1 for marking further exhibits on his side. I.A.No.1642 of 2009 was filed by the same plaintiff to receive the documents mentioned in the petition. Those applications came to be dismissed by the Court referred to above and the present revisions are directed against the said orders.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the suit was filed against the respondents for recovery of money by the company represented by its Vice-President (Operations). The Company has authorized the said Vice-President by resolution No.228 dated 27.09.2001. The true extract was omitted to be filed by mistake and inadvertence, when he was examined as PW1 and hence an application was taken out to recall PW1 for marking the said document. An application was also taken out to condone the delay in filing the document.

4. However, it is contended on the side of the respondents by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the applications were taken out at the belated stage. That apart, the signatory of the plaintiff was not authorized to file the suit in his capacity as Vice-President (Operations) of the petitioner company. Hence, the applications have been rightly dismissed by the Court below which does not require any interference by this Court in the revisions filed against those orders.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

6. The suit was originally filed by one M/s.Sundaram Dynacast Pvt. Ltd., which was represented by its Vice-President (Operations). In the affidavits in support of the applications to recall PW1 and also to condone the delay in filing the document, it is stated that the company has authorized the said Vice-President (Operations) by its resolution dated 27.09.2001 to institute legal proceedings on behalf of the company, but however the same was omitted to be filed by mistake and inadvertence. Though, the said applications were taken out belatedly, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the petitioner could be permitted to file the said resolution. By merely permitting the petitioner to produce that resolution, it will not curtail the right of the respondents to contend that no such resolution was passed, but it is brought in only to throw the defense raised by the respondents. That apart, by merely receiving the said document, it does not mean that the respondents have no liberty to question about the admissibility of the document when it is sought to be marked. The admissibility of the document can be questioned on behalf of the respondents when it is sought to be marked through PW1. While so, even at the inception stage namely, at the time of receiving the document, the admissibility or veracity of the document cannot be gone into.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied on the decision reported in AIR 1935 Lahore 648, Dasaundhi Khan v. Rabian Bibi and contended that the documents cannot be received after arguments are heard. However, in the same judgment it has been held that though the documents cannot be received after arguments are heard, if some sufficient reasons are shown for its non-production, the same could be received. In the case on hand, it is stated in the affidavit in support of the application that extract of the said resolution was omitted to be filed by mistake and inadvertence when PW1 was examined. Thus, an explanation has been given as to why the said resolution was not filed when PW1 was examined.

8. Yet another decision that was relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents is re