1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.156 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Vedikkaran .. Petitioner/Plaintiff Vs. 1.Karuppan 2.Soundaram 3.Selvam .. Respondents/Defendant Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 10.11.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.674 of 2010 in Original Suit No.718 of 2006 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nandakumar ORDER The order dated 10.11.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.674 of 2010 in Original Suit No.718 of 2006 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.718 of 2006 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction. During pendency of the same, the present petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.674 of 2010 under Order XIII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to reject Ex.B2, which has been marked on the side of the respondents/defendants in Original Suit No.718 of 2006. The Court below has dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 3. Considering the nature of the relief sought for in Interlocutory Application No.674 of 2010 in Original Suit No.718 of 2006 as well as the nature of the order passed therein, notice need not be sent to the respondents and under the said circumstances, 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 inspite of objection raised on the side of the revision petitioner, the document in question has been marked as Ex.B2 and the same cannot be relied upon and under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed so as to reject Ex.B2, but the Court below without considering the contention urged on the side of the revision petitioner has erroneously dismissed Interlocutory Application No.674 of 2010 and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to interfered with. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. It is an admitted fact that Original Suit No.718 of 2006 has been instituted for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. On the side of the respondents/ defendants, Ex.B2 has been marked. In fact in Ex.B2, the earlier transaction has been referred to and further under Ex.B2 no new transaction has been routed through. 6. The only objection raised on the side of the revision petitioner is that Ex.B2 cannot be relied upon. It is a well settled principle of law that marking a particular document as exhibit does not amount to accept the same and the same can be accepted only on the basis of the available evidence on record. Under the said circumstances the Court cannot come to a conclusion that Ex.B2 cannot be marked. 7. The Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly dismissed Interlocutory Application No.674 of 2010 and in view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error in the order passed by the Court below and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. 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.674 of 2010 in Original Suit No.718 of 2006 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul is confirmed. However it is open to the revision petitioner to raise his objection with regard to evidentiary value of Ex.B2. Further the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul is directed to dispose of Original Suit No.718 of 2006 before the end of April, 2011 and report the same to the Registry without fail. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul. +1cc to M/s.R.Nandakumar, Advocate SR.3696 smn SR : 10.02.2011 : 2p/3c C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.156 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 28.01.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/