AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Dinakaran, J.—By consent, the main revision itself is taken up for hearing.
The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.148 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam, laid by the
respondents/plaintiffs for declaring that the respondents/plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property; for a permanent injunction restraining
the revision petitioners/defendants from in any manner interfering with the possession of the respondents/ plaintiffs over the suit property; and for
costs.
Alleging that the revision petitioners/defendants were not permitted to mark the document relied upon by them as a defence, the defendants have
filed the above revision, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL V. STATE OF GUJARAT
reported in (2001) 3 S.C.C. 1, wherein it is held as follows:
When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the
admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively
as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final
judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded
from consideration. There is no illegality in adopting such a course.
However, if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all
other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.
The above procedure, if followed, will have two advantages. First is that the time in the trial court, during evidence-taking stage, would not be
wasted on account of raising such objections and the court can continue to examine the witnesses. The witnesses need not wait for long hours, if
not days. Second is that the superior court, when the same is recanvassed and reconsidered in appeal or revision against the final judgment of the
trial court, can determine the correctness of the view taken by the trial court regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to the trial
court again for fresh disposal. This measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation and would not add to their misery or
expenses.
Therefore, the above is made as a procedure to be followed by the trial courts whenever an objection is raised regarding the admissibility of any
material or any item of oral evidence.
Applying the above ratio laid down by the Apex Court in BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL V. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in (2001) 3
S.C.C. 1, this revision is allowed, permitting the revision petitioners/defendants to mark the said document, subject to the right of the respondents/
plaintiffs to object the same in a manner as indicated in the decision of the Apex Court, referred to above. Consequently, C.M.P.No.16585 of
2001 is closed.