Ramachandra Educational Trust vs S.Natarajan
2021 Latest Caselaw 939 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 939 Mad
Judgement Date : 18 January, 2021

Madras High Court

Ramachandra Educational Trust vs S.Natarajan on 18 January, 2021

                                                                        C.R.P.(PD)No.3579 of 2016

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 18.01.2021

                                                      CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                             C.R.P.(PD) No.3579 of 2016
                                             and C.M.P.No.18281 of 2016

                     1. Ramachandra Educational Trust,
                        Rep. by its Trustees,
                        i. R.Radha, Founder
                        ii. B.Ramachandran,
                             Managing Trustee
                        iii. B.Indirani, Trustree
                        Bangur, Ariyur Revenue Village,
                        Pondy - Villupuram Main Road,
                        Pondicherry - 605 102.

                     2. Sri Venkateswara Medical College
                         and Research Foundation,
                        Rep. by its Chairman,
                        Villupuram Main Road,
                        Ariyur, Pondicherry - 605 102.                        ... Petitioners

                                                          Vs.
                     S.Natarajan                                              ... Respondent
                     Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution
                     of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 21.03.2016 made in
                     I.A.No.88 of 2014 in O.S.No.1307 of 2006 on the file of the Principal
                     District Munsif, Puducherry.


                     Page 1 of 6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                C.R.P.(PD)No.3579 of 2016

                                              For Petitioners    : Mr.D.Ravichander

                                              For Respondent : No appearance
                                                          ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed as against the fair

and decreetal order dated 21.03.2016 passed by the learned Principal

District Munsif, Puducherry in I.A.No.88 of 2014 in O.S.No.1307 of 2006,

thereby dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners to receive the

documents as evidence and to be marked as exhibits on the petitioners' side.

2. The petitioners are the defendants 1 & 2 in the suit filed by the

respondent herein for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction to

return all the original certificate of the respondent herein in the custody of

the second petitioner herein. The petitioners filed written statement stating

that the petitioners trust has applied for MCI's approval to start the college

and the approval is awaited. The necessary papers for approval have already

been submitted and the MCI committee has also inspected and the college is

expected to function from the academic year 2007-08. Therefore, the

petitioners could not be able to produce the documents at the time of filing

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)No.3579 of 2016

the written statement. After filing the written statement those documents

came to the custody of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners filed

petition to receive the documents in evidence. The Court below dismissed

the said petition for the reason that the original documents are not filed and

only attested photo copy of the documents filed along with petition. Further

observed that when the original documents as mentioned in the list of

documents were under the custody of the petitioners, they cannot file the

Xerox copy of the documents to mark as evidence.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit

that the original documents are very much available with the petitioners and

they are ready to produce all the original documents whenever is necessary.

He also relied upon the judgment reported in 2010 (3) CTC 761 in the case

of K.Veerabadran and anr Vs. K.Venugopal and ors as follows:-

"The issue of admissibility and the evidentiary value of the document was considered by the learned Trial Judge during the time of examination of D.W.-1 and at the time of marking the said document as an exhibit. It is true that the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)No.3579 of 2016

document as a whole has to be considered for the purpose of deciding the nature of the document. Mere nomenclature is not the deciding factor for determining the true nature of a document. Court has to look into the entire text of the document and must come to a definite finding about the admissibility of an unregistered family arrangement."

4. It is well settled legal position that admissibility as well as the

evidentiary value of the documents have to be decided by the trial Court

only at the time of marking the document as an evidence. Therefore, the

above judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

squarely applicable to the case on hand. Further the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners also submitted that the petitioners are ready to

produce the original document itself, while marking the same.

5. In view of the above discussions, the order dated 21.03.2016

passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Puducherry in I.A.No.88 of

2014 in O.S.No.1307 of 2006, is hereby set aside. The petitioners are

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)No.3579 of 2016

directed to produce the original documents which are intended to produce