1

A.No.4502 of 2016

in T.O.S.No.9 of 2005

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA.J

This application is filed by the applicant/plaintiff to receive

additional documents in the above Testamentary Original Suit.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff and

learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Considering the submissions made on either side and also

going through the averments made in the affidavit, I am inclined to

allow the application but however the documents sought to be

marked as additional evidence can be marked subject to proof,

relevancy and admissibility at the time of evidence. This Court may

follow the procedures as per the decision of the Honourable

Supreme Court reported in 2001-3-SCC-1 (Bipin Shantilall

Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and another) while dealing with

the question of admissibility of documents during the course of trial

at the stage of taking evidence when any objection is raised.

4. Therefore, the applicant/plaintiff is permitted to file the

documents, subject to proof and relevancy of those documents. It

is open to the parties to raise his objections with regard to the

2

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANAN.J,

srn

admissibility and relevancy of those documents at the time of

recording the evidence before the learned Additional Master-I and

the learned Master shall record such objections leaving it to the

Court to decide about the admissibility and relevancy of those

documents at the time of arguments.

5. With the above observations, the application is allowed.

The Registry is directed to list the matter before the learned

Additional Master-I for recording further evidence. The learned

counsel for the applicant/plaintiff shall produce the original

document before the learned Additional Master at the time of

recording evidence. It is also directed that both the parties shall co-

operate with the learned Additional Master-I in recording the

evidence.

04.10.2016

(1/2)

srn

A.No.4502 of 2016

in T.O.S.No.9 of 2005