M.V. Muralidaran, J.

The plaintiff is the Civil Revision Petitioner before this Court. Challenging the order passed in I.A.No.728 of 2011 in O.S.No.1842 of 2005 dated 21.11.2011 by the learned III Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, rejecting the petition filed under Rule 75 of Civil Rules of Practise for summoning the Inspector of Police (Law and Order), B-7 Police Station to produce the documents.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule of property described in the schedule was originally purchased as a vacant house site by one Late N. Sakunthala by way of a registered Sale Deed dated 24.11.1968 in Document No.4051 of 1968, on the file of Registrar of Coimbatore.

3. After purchasing the suit schedule of property, the said Late N. Sakunthala has developed and constructed the building, in the suit schedule of property and thereafter the said Sukunthala was died intestate and leaving behind her only daughter Mrs. K. Girija also died on 13.03.2005. The plaintiff also states that there was no issues of her own and during her life time, she adopted the plaintiff, who is her cousin, as her daughter, since adoption of the plaintiff and the deceased Sakuntala and the deceased K. Girija were lived as mother and daughter. In fact, the said Girija has been imparting education and other basic necessities to the plaintiff were always been showering love and affection on her as her natural daughter. This was continued till the marriage of the plaintiff.

4. During the life time of the said Girija, the Will dated 06.03.2005 was executed in favour of the plaintiff thereby making the plaintiff as absolute owner of the suit property. Though, the defendant has no way connected to the suit property as claiming the ownership of the property. Therefore, the plaintiff has approached the learned District Munsif Court, Coimbatore and filed the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction.

5. On receipt of the summon, the defendant appeared through his Advocate and filed the written statement stating that though the suit property consisting of two portions and one portion K. Girija lead her life time, until her demise and another portion, the plaintiff has permitted the defendant M. Sampath Kumar to stay by the said K. Girija in another portion and the defendant also denied the execution of Will in favour of the plaintiff. While pendency of the suit, the defendant has filed I.A. No. 778 of 2011 with a prayer to grant leave to summon the Inspector of Police (Law and Order), B7 Police Station to produce the documents listed in the petition in I.A. No. 778 of 2011. The defendant further stated that the plaintiff has produced the bills which was not admitted by the defendant. The defendant also stated that already a complaint was alleged to the Inspector of Police (Law and Order), B7 Police Station. The plaintiff's husband and the deceased mother K. Girija appeared before the enquiry and they voluntarily delivered a letter to B-3, Puliakulam Police Station on 26.03.2015 in F.I.R. No. 35 of 2005, now the said letter is under the custody of the B7 Police Station and it is an important legal documents and constitute evidence under law. Therefore, the petitioner/defendant sought for permission is granted to summon the Inspector of Police (Law and Order) B7 Police Station to produce the said documents and to give evidence in O.S.No.1842 of 2005.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff stating that the petitioner/defendant has not come before this Court with clean hands, the documents are sought to be summoned are legally barred from being admitted as evidence under the Evidence Act. Since the said documents were admittedly executed before the Police Officer, they cannot be produced as evidence in this case. Moreover the said documents are not relevant to the facts of the present case and the petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant only to delay and defeat justice. Hence, he prays for dismissal of th