1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.391 of 2011 G.Murugan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.M.Muniamma 2.V.Meiyappan 3.M.Raju 4.M.Ravi 5.L.Subramanian 6.M.Selvakumar 7.L.Vijaya .. Respondents Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 11.01.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.936 of 2010 in Original Suit No.81 of 2009 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Karaikudi. For Petitioner : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the order dated 11.01.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.936 of 2010 in Original Suit No.81 of 2009 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Karaikudi. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.81 of 2009 on the file of the Court below for the relief of permanent injunction, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. On the side of the respondents/ defendants, Exs.B4 to B6 have been filed and in order to reject the same, the present petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.936 of 2010. The Court below has dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 3. Considering the nature of the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.936 of 2010 in Original Suit No.81 of 2009 by the Court below, notice need not be sent to the respondent and the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that Exs.B4 to B6 are all unregistered documents and the Court below without considering its infirmities has erroneously marked the same and under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed and the Court below has erroneously dismissed the same and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be interfered with. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. In fact, this Court has perused the entire order passed by the Court below and ultimately found that through the witness of the respondents/defendants, Exs.B4 to B6 have been filed. The only contention urged on the side of the revision petitioner is that Exs.B4 to B6 are unregistered documents and the same cannot be marked. Since Exs.B4 to B6 are unregistered documents, the Court below ought to have collected stamp duty penalty. But here no indication is available as to whether stamp duty penalty has been collected with regard to Exs.B4 to B6. The present petition has been filed so as to reject Exs.B4 to B6. If stamp duty penalty is paid, even an unregistered document can be exhibited. Under the said circumstances, the relief sought for in the present petition cannot be granted. The Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly dismissed the petition. 6. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.936 of 2010 in Original Suit No.81 of 2009 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Karaikudi is confirmed. However, the Additional District Munsif Court, Karaikudi is directed to collect stamp duty penalty in respect of Exs.B4 to B6. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi. C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.391 of 2011 01.03.2011 smn PA/10.03.2011/2P/2C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/