Hilda Pushpavathi and Gnanaruban vs Duraikkannu

G. Rajasuria, J.—Animadverting upon the order dated 04.10.2007 passed by the learned District Munsif, Ariyalur in I.A. No. 382 of 2007

in O.S. No. 65 of 2005, this civil revision petition is focussed.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Though notice has been served on the respondent, no one represented.

A ""resume"" of facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:

The revision petitioner herein filed a defamation suit claiming damages as against the respondent. The trial also commenced. While so, the

defendant filed I.A. No. 382 of 2007 before the lower Court for reception of the following documents:

The Judgment in O.S. No. 142 of 1989, Subordinate Judge''s Court at Ariyalur.

Copy of the complaint filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court at Jeyankondam

Wound Certificate of one Sumathi

Photos

Tax Receipts

Birth Certificate of one Suresh

The trial Court allowed the application for reception of documents. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the present civil revision

petition has been filed on various grounds.

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners, placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop her argument to the effect that the

order of the lower court does not refer to the relevancy of those documents at all to the defamation suit but, simply allowed the interim application.

A bare perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant would exemplify and indicate that in the written statement itself in page No. 2 at

the last paragraph a reference to the complaint is found and only a copy of which is sought to be filed in the Court. The wound certificate and the

Birth Certificate of one Suresh, it appears are relating to the complaint as well as the defence as found set out in the written statement.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the said first document referred to supra, viz., the certified copy of the judgment in O.S.

No. 142 of 1989 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge''s Court at Ariyalur, was already marked on the plaintiff''s side. The learned Counsel

for the petitioner would further submit that all those documents referred to in the interim application are having no relevance to the issue and not

germane for adjudication.

At this juncture, my mind is reminiscent and redolent of the trite proposition of law that the defendant who is a party to a lis, should be given due

opportunity to file documents, unless there are sound reasons for rejecting the same. In this case, the lower Court in its discretion thought fit to

allow the petition so as to give due opportunity to the defendant to adduce evidence, in support of his contention justifying his stand as against the

plaintiff. In a defamation case, the defendant is entitled to take up the plea of justification of truth and only to probabilise his defence he has chosen

to file those documents.

Hence, in these circumstances, no interference with the order of the trial Court is required.

At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would make an extempore submission that the petitioners might be given an opportunity

to object to the same on the ground that those are all not relevant documents for deciding the issue.

I call up and recollect the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2001 Sc 1158 (Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and

Anr.). An excerpt from it would run thus:

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. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that 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 objection 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. We may also point out that this measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation

and would not add to their misery or expenses.

The trial Court shall strictly adhere to the above decision and it shall process the matter and dispose it of within a period of two months from the

date of the receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above observation, this civil revision petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.