Radhakrishnan and Sasikala vs Gunasekaran

M. Jaichandren, J.—This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 12.12.2008, made in I.A. No. 1698 of 2008, in

O.S. No. 87 of 2003, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurantagam.

The petitioners in the Civil Revision Petition are the defendants in the suit, in O.S. No. 87 of 2003, filed by the respondent for a decree of

permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their men, agents and representatives from, in any manner, interfering with the plaintiff�s peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

The petitioners herein had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A. No. 1698 of 2008, praying that the trial Court may be pleased to permit the

petitioners to mark an unregistered sale deed, dated 30.9.1994, as a document in favour of the petitioners to prove their possession in respect of

the suit properties. By its order, dated 12.12.2008, the trial Court had dismissed the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners mainly on the

ground that the document sought to be marked by the petitioners is an unstamped and unregistered document.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that the order passed by the trial Court, on 12.12.2008, in I.A. No.

1698 of 2008, is erroneous and illegal. The trial Court had erred in dismissing the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners, under Order 8

Rule 3(a) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, stating that the sale deed cannot be marked, as it is an unstamped and unregistered document. The

trial Court had failed to see that the suit filed by the respondent is for a bare injunction and that the document sought to be marked by the

petitioners could be used for collateral purposes.

There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in Bondar Singh and Others Vs.

Nihal Singh and Others, , wherein, it had been held that an unregistered and unstamped document can be looked into for the collateral purpose of

showing possession, even though it may not be admissible in evidence.

In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and on a perusal of the records available and in view of the decision cited above,

the order of the trial Court, dated 12.12.2008, made in I.A. No. 1698 of 2008, in O.S. No. 87 of 2003, is set aside and the learned Principal

Subordinate Judge, Erode, is directed to permit the petitioners to mark the document, as per their prayer in I.A. No. 1698 of 2008, subject to the

objections, which may be raised by the respondent herein, the plaintiff in the suit, in O.S. No. 87 of 2003, if any. It is also made clear that it would

be open to the trial Court to decide on the validity and the genuineness of the said document sought to be marked by the petitioners herein.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. No. 1 of 2009 is closed.