1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION (MD)Nos.2078 and 1157 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (MD) Nos.2 and 1 of 2011 Sundaramoorthy .. Petitioner in C.R.P.No.2078 of 2011/Plaintiff Respondent in C.R.P.No.1157 of 2011/ Plaintiff Vs. Sankareswari .. Respondent in C.R.P.No.2078 of 2011/Defendant Petitioner in C.R.P.No.1157 of 2011/ Defendant Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 31.03.2011 passed in the memo filed in Original Suit No.105 of 2010 by the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan in C.R.P.No.2078 of 2011 and respondent in C.R.P.No.1157 of 2011. For petitioner in : Mr.Pon Senthil Kumaran in C.R.P.No.1157 of 2011. COMMON ORDER The order dated 31.03.2011 passed in the memo filed in Original Suit No.105 of 2010 by the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petitions. 2. The revision petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No.2078 of 2011 as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.105 of 2010 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of specific performance and also for perpetual injunction, wherein the revision petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No.1157 of 2011 has been shown as sole defendant. During the course of evidence on the side of the plaintiff, made an attempt to mark the document dated 30.09.2008 as an exhibit. At that time, on the side of the defendant, the memo in question has been filed by way of raising objection. The Court below after hearing both sides has allowed the plaintiff to mark some recitals, which are relevant for collateral purpose. Against the disallowed portion, the plaintiff as revision petitioner has filed Civil Revision Petition No.2078 of 2011 and against the allowed portion the defendant as revision petitioner has filed Civil Revision Petition No.1157 of 2011. 3. Considering the fact that in both the Civil Revision Petitions common questions of law and facts are involved, common order is passed. 4. It is an admitted that Original Suit No.105 of 2010 has been instituted for the reliefs of specific performance and also for perpetual injunction. In the plaint, it has been specifically https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 averred that the plaintiff has obtained a sale agreement dated 30.09.2008. The memo in question has been filed mainly on the basis that the agreement dated 30.09.2008 has not been registered and therefore the same cannot be marked. 5. The Court below on the basis of the objection raised in the memo has simply allowed the plaintiff to mark some recitals which are relevant for collateral purpose. 6. It is an admitted fact that in the plaint filed in Original Suit No.105 of 2010, it has been clearly stated that the plaintiff has obtained the suit sale agreement dated 30.09.2008. Of course it may be true that the same requires registration. Simply because the document requires registration, the same cannot be rejected at threshold. But the proper procedure is that after paying stamp duty penalty, the same can be marked and as per law the Court can look into its evidentiary value. But the Court below has erroneously directed the plaintiff to mark certain recitals which are relevant for collateral purpose. Therefore the order passed by the Court below is totally erroneous and further the objection raised in the memo is not legally maintainable and altogether Civil Revision Petition No.2078 of 2011 is liable to be allowed and Civil Revision Petition No.1157 of 2011 is liable to be dismissed. 7. In fine, Civil Revision Petition No.2078 of 2011 is allowed without costs and the order passed in the memo dated 31.03.2011 in Original Suit No.105 of 2010 by the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti is set aside the memo is rejected. However the revision petitioner/ plaintiff is directed to pay stamp duty penalty. After paying stamp duty penalty, the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti is directed to mark the document and also directed to look into its evidentiary value at the time of pronouncing Judgment in Original Suit No.105 of 2010. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 8. In fine, Civil Revision Petition No.1157 of 2011 deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The District Munsif, Kovilpatti. +1cc to Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan, Advocate, Sr.No.38283 COMMON ORDER MADE IN C.R.P(MD)Nos.2078 and 1157 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.2 and 1 of 2011 smn/sma/21.11.2011/3c/2p 04.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/