COMMON ORDER

These revisions are directed against the orders passed in I.A.Nos.3, 4 and 2 of 2020 in O.S.No.363 of 2018 on the file of the Sub Court, Eraniel.

2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and he filed a suit in O.S.No.47 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Padmanabaphuram claiming the relief of specific performance in pursuance of an oral sale agreement dated 03.01.2010 and for declaration that the settlement deed dated 05.01.2011 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. It is evident that the suit was transferred to the Court of Subordinate Court, Eraniel and the same was taken on file in O.S.No.363 of 2018. It is further evident that when the petitioner’s witness PW.3 was in witness box, the above three Interlocutory Applications came to be filed. The application in I.A.No.2 of 2020 is filed under Section 151 CPC seeking orders to keep the compact CD produced by the plaintiff in safe custody; I.A.No.3 of 2020 is filed under Section 45A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act seeking orders directing the Director, TNSFL (Tamil Nadu Service Forensic Laboratory), Physics Division, Chennai to record the voice of persons listed in the petition and to compare the same with the voice found in the Compact Disc produced by P.W.3 and I.A.No.4 of 2020 is filed under Order 7 Rule 14(iii) and Section 151 CPC seeking orders to recieve the documents i.e., CD taken by PW.3 allegedly containing conversation between the plaintiff and others.

3. Admittedly, first defendant is the maternal aunt of the plaintiff. It is the specific case of the revision petitioner / plaintiff that the first defendant has agreed to sell 23 Cents of her property to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per cent and on the basis of the said oral agreement dated 03.01.2020 the plaintiff has paid the entire sale consideration of Rs, 2,30,000/- to the first defendant in the presence of her family members, that the first defendant had also delivered the possession of the property, that the plaintiff subsequently came to know on 02.02.2011 that the first defendant had executed a settlement deed in respect of the suit property along with some other property in favour of her daughter 2nd defendant and that since the first defendant has refused to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, she was constrained to file the above suit.

4. The defendants have filed their written statement disputing the oral sale agreement alleged by the plaintiff and they are contesting the suit.

5. The plaintiff by alleging that when the plaintiff along with her family members went to the house of the first defendant on 06.02.2011 and requested the first defendant to execute the sale deed, that the conversation took place at that time between the first defendant and her family members with the plaintiff, her husband and others present was recorded in the mobile phone of Selvan, that subsequently, the same was recorded in the CD and when the same was attempted to be marked, the same was objected by the other side and that therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above applications.

6. Though the plaintiff has taken a stand that the conversation that took place was recorded and was very much available, the same was not at all referred in the plaint nor in the evidence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no where whispered as to when he came to know about the recording of conversation and the availability of CD. Though the plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that she went to the residence of the first defendant on 06.02.2011 along with her family members and demanded the first defendant to cancel the settlement deed executed and to execute the sale deed, she has not whispered about the said Selvan, alleged to be a mediator in the transaction.

7. Th