Muthu VS Sampath

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

P. B. BALAJI
Muthu – Appellant
Versus
Sampath – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : A. Muthukumar.
For the Respondents: B. Jawahar.

ORDER :

(P.B. Balaji, J.)

1. This civil revision petition has been filed as against the order dated 30.08.2017 made in I.A. No.171 of 2016 in O.S. No.69 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai.

2. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2017 in I.A. No.171 of 2016 in O.S. No.69 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai, is the revision petitioner.

3. The 4th defendant filed I.A. No.171 of 2016 seeking to introduce an unstamped and unregistered Release Deed dated 17.06.2002 as evidence on his side. The said application was resisted by the revision petitioner/plaintiff on the ground that the Release Deed was unregistered and cannot be received in evidence.

4. The Trial Court, accepting the request of the 4th defendant, holding that the admissibility of the document can be decided later and no prejudice would be caused by ordering the document to be received, proceeded to allow the application.

5. I have heard Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.B.Jawahar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

6. Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would refer to the unregistered docum