Original documents in the custody of the court cannot be sent anywhere for examination or analysis without adequate reasoning given by the court, considering the possibility of tampering with or eluding away with the documents, which could deprive the parties of their right to a decree or order from the court.

1. The main challenge in this revision is the order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore made in I.A. No. 1254 of 1995 in O.S. No. 313 of 1991 dated 1.2.1996 allowing the petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure granting permission to send some material documents marked in the suit on behalf of the plaintiff for examination to the India Security Press at Nazik in Maharashtra State, to ascertain the date of issue of the stamps found in those documents in spite of the serious objection by filing the counter statement on behalf of the revision petitioner herein.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff which is one of the nationalised banking institutions at Cuddalore has filed the suit against the respondent herein for recovery of the suit amount on the basis of certain loan documents created by the defendant originally and thereby got the monetary consideration by way of loan and had the transaction with the plaintiff/revision petitioners. Since the entire amount has not been repaid during the course of the said business transaction, several revival letters on various us subsequent dates were claimed to have been executed by the respondent herein which according to the revision petitioner emerged into the very basis for the suit claim and thus for the default of the repayment of the loan amount committed, the revision petitioner has filed the suit. The respondent the suit by filing a written statement in which he has contested the suit claim of the plaintiff on more than one ground and the significant amongst them is that the revenue stamps affixed in the several revival letters were of recent origin however, opted to represent the earlier period in order to mulct the civil liability upon this defendant and to have the decree against him. After framing the issues on the basis of the contentions raised on behalf of both the parties, since the suit itself was ripe for trial, the trial was commenced. Recording of oral and documentary evidence on behalf of the respective parties was almost over and the argument was also heard in intoto. It was at this stage, the defendant chose to file the present application. Under Section 151, C.P.C. and sought the permission of the court to send the suit documents to the Defence Press at Nasik in Maharashtra State to ascertain the exact distribution date of the revenue stamps affixed in the suit documents. Though the petition was seriously resisted, on hearing the respective parties on merits of the application, the trial court allowed the petition by passing the impugned order on payment of a sum of Rs. 300/- by the respondent herein to the revision petitioner on or before 19.2.1996. The property of the impugned order is thus being challenged.

3. I have heard Mr. Raghunathan, learned counsel on behalf of the revision petitioner and the contra contentions by Mr. Kannan for the respondent. That apart, on factual aspects it is seen that the common ground made available in the instant case is, the claim of the plaintiff made in the plaint as well as the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent do not go to show that the suit transaction as a whole or in part is totally false or frivolous. But, however, the mode of contention on behalf of thee defandant is that the revenue stamps distributed in the subsequent period and later years were used by the revision petitioner/plaintiff in the revival letters marked as Exhibits P-3, P-4, P-5, P-7, P-11, to P-15, P-17, P-18, P-21, P-26, P-27, P-28, P-29, P-30, P-34, P-35, P-37, P-38, P-39, P-40, and P-41 which were executed by the defendant even at the original stage of the loan secured. Significant at this stage to note that the application warranting the impugned order was filed by the defendant with such aforesaid allegation only after recording of the oral and documentary evidence was closed and over. Besides the arguments were advanced. It is, herefore, under the circumstances, I have no hesitation t