1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the docket order dated 1.7.2014 in O.S.No.5878 of 2013 on the file of VII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, in marking Exs.A-1 to A-16 and in particular, Exs.A-3 to A-16 marked with objection on the side of the defendants.

2. The petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.5878 of 2013 pending on the file of VII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, filed by the respondent herein for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioners are aggrieved by marking of Exs.A-3 to A-16 by the respondent/plaintiff on the sole ground that they are only photocopies and therefore, they cannot be marked as documents. It is their contention that even though they have filed a memo, objecting to the marking of those documents in the form of photocopies, the trial Court erred in allowing the plaintiff to mark those documents without considering and giving a finding on the objections raised by the petitioners/defendants. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that those documents cannot be marked even by recording that they are marked with objections of the petitioners/defendants. In support of his submissions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2007 (5) SCC 730 (J.Yashoda Vs. K.Shobha Rani), 1966 (3) SCR 283 = AIR 1966 SC 1457 (Roman Catholic Mission Vs. State of Madras) and 2010 (8) SCC 423 (Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. Surendrda Oil and Dal Mills).

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the trial Court has rightly allowed the plaintiff to mark those documents, even though they are photocopies, in view of the fact that the originals are in the custody of the petitioners/defendants. It is the contention of the plaintiff-Society that those documents are essentially to be marked to prove their case against the defendants. It is further submitted that such marking of documents, even though they are not originals, is permissible under Section 65(a) of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further contended that proviso to Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act also contemplates that issuing of notice to the other side, can be dispensed with. In support of the above submissions, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff relied on the decision of this Court (Madurai Bench) reported in 2007 (5) CTC 206 (Amutha Beellarmine Corera Vs. Elsie Villavarayer). He also submitted that the case laws relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are factually distinguishable.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

5. The point for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is as to whether certain documents which are in the form of photocopies, can be marked by the plaintiff even by recording that they are marked with objections on the defendants' side, without seeking permission of the Court by filing appropriate application.

6. The contention of the petitioners who are the defendants in the said suit is that those documents were marked inspite of their objections made through memo, dated 16.6.2014. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the originals of those documents are in the custody of the defendants and therefore, under Section 65(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the plaintiff is entitled to mark those documents, even though such marking is objected by the defendants.

7. No doubt, both sides have relied on certain case laws referred to above in their favour and made submissions elaborately, both on factual and legal aspects. This Court can go into the issue involved in this case and decide the same, if such issue involves only a question of law. On the other hand, if such issue involves both question of law and facts, unless there is a finding rendered by the Court below in respect of such question of facts,