ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and decretal order in I.A.No.142 of 2013 in O.S.No.47 of 2005 dated 10.04.2015 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, thereby, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner to recall D.W.1 to mark the document dated 14.05.2000.

2. The respondents 1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs. The petitioner is the second defendant in the suit filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein for partition. In the cross examination of P.W.1, he admitted the signature of one Aadhimoolam, viz., the father-in-law of the plaintiffs in the unregistered family arrangement document dated 14.05.2000. It was marked as Ex.B.14. After, the evidence of plaintiffs side, the defendants filed proof affidavit. They want to mark the document as Ex.B.14. Since, the said document dated 14.05.2000 was un-registered release deed and as such, the petitioner filed a petition to recall D.W.1 to mark the said document.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not at all a party to the document and as such, he cannot be called upon to pay Stamp duty and penalty to mark the un-registered release deed. He relied upon Section 29 of the Indian Stamp Act and also relied upon various decisions, in respect of admissibility of un-stamped un-registered document as well as the secondary evidence. The Court below failed to note that the original of the said document was not summoned and as such, it can be marked as secondary evidence. In fact, the petitioner challenging, the order passed by the trial Court refusing to re-open the evidence of D.W.1 for marking a document filed C.R.P.(PD) No.1526 of 2014. The said Civil Revision Petition was allowed the trial Court was directed to re-open the case but that without recalling D.W.1, the Court below cannot adjudicate upon the admissibility of the document dated 14.05.2000, which was already been marked as Ex.B.14. Further, the adjudication shall be with specific reference to the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act. If the trial Court holds that the document is admissible, it may permit marking of the document through D.W.1 by recalling him and allow the plaintiffs to cross examine him. If the trial Court comes to the conclusion that the document is not admissible, it may follow the procedure prescribed by law for impounding. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition to recall himself to mark the document dated 14.05.2000.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first to third respondents submitted that the document sought to be marked is as un-registered release deed and it cannot be marked by recalling D.W.1. It was filed only to delay the completion of the trial and drag on the proceedings. The cross examination of D.W.1 commenced before the representation for marking of the document is completely false. In fact, the petitioner was absent for several hearings for cross examination and as such, his evidence was closed. Only on the petition, he was recalled for cross-examination. He further submitted that even during the plaintiffs evidence, the signature alone in the said document was marked as Ex.B.14. Admittedly, it is a Xerox copy of the un-registered release deed. Therefore, the judgments cited by the petitioner are not at all applicable to the case on hand.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the first to third respondents.

6. This Court while disposing the Civil Revision Petition in CRP.No.1526 of 2010 allowed the said Civil Revision Petition by an order dated 21.01.2015 and directed as follows :-

“6. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed to the following extent:

(i) Without recalling D.W.1, the Court below shall adjudicate upon the admissibility of the document dated 14.05.2000, one signature of which alone has already been marked as Ex.B.14;

(ii) The adjudication shall be with specific reference to the provisions