Madras High Court
Muthukaruppan @ Muthukumar vs Idol Of The Arulmigu Kalyana ... on 20 April, 2022
C.R.P(MD).Nos.910 and 1621 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S. ANANTHI
C.R.P(MD).Nos.910 and 1621 of 2021 and
CMP(MD).Nos.5118 and 8784 of 2021
Muthukaruppan @ Muthukumar : Petitioner in both CRPs
Vs
Idol of the Arulmigu Kalyana Pasupatheeswaraswamy,
Arulmigu Kalyana Pasupatheeswaraswamy Devasthanam.
Karur rep. by its
Executive Officer,
Karur. : Respondent in both CRPs
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.
3 of 2020 and 1 of 2020 in O.S.Nos.45 and 46 of 2016, dated 16.02.2021
on the file of the Principal District Judge, Karur.
For petitioner in both CRPs : Mr.K. Suresh
For respondent in CRP.No.910/21: Mr. M.Saravanan
For respondent in CRP.No.1621/21: Mr. Aathimoola Pandian
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD).Nos.910 and 1621 of 2021
COMMON ORDER
The revision petitioner / defendant filed these revisions to set
aside the order, dated 16.02.2021 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2020 and 1 of 2020
in O.S.Nos.45 and 46 of 2016 respectively, on the file of the Principal
District Judge, Karur.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
3. Both the above said Interlocutory Applications have been
filed by the respondent / plaintiff to accept the xerox copy of the
resettlement register of the year 1880 and 1915 documents as secondary
evidence as per Sections 63 and 67 of Indian Evidence Act. He has also
filed two more applications to recall the evidence of PW.1 and to receive
the documents. The revision petitioner has filed these revisions only
against the order passed in I.A.Nos.3 and 1 of 2020 in O.S.Nos.45 and 46
of 2016 respectively for accepting the xerox copy of the documents on
the side of the plaintiff.
4. The respondent / plaintiff has not filed any original
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD).Nos.910 and 1621 of 2021
document for comparison with the xerox copy of the said document. The
xerox copy can be received, but cannot be accepted as secondary evidence.
The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 55 AIC
261 in the case of J.Yashoda Vs. K.Shobha Rani has held that the
photocopies could not have been marked and taken as secondary evidence
since the Clause (a) of Section 65 of the Act is not satisfied. If the
respondent / plaintiff can produce some other documents from the
Department he can very well file an Interlocutory Application to receive
the Documents. But, the Court cannot accept the xerox copy of the
documents.
5. The counsel for respondent / plaintiff has stated that
without objecting the applications for recalling the evidence of PW.1 and
to receive the documents, the revision petitioner cannot file revisions
against the acceptance of the documents passed in a common order. But,
there are some other documents, in which, the revision petitioner has no
objection regarding the marking of one document. So, the revision
petitions are maintainable.
6. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD).Nos.910 and 1621 of 2021
setting aside the order, dated 16.02.2021 passed in I.A.Nos.3 and 1 of
2020 in O.S.Nos.45 and 46 of 2016, dated 16.02.2021 on the file of the
Principal District Judge, Karur. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
20.04.2022
Index : Yes : No
Internet : Yes : No
trp
To
The Principal District Judge, Karur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD).Nos.910 and 1621 of 2021
S. ANANTHI, J.,
trp
C.R.P(MD).Nos.910 and 1621 of 2021 and
CMP(MD).Nos.5118 and 8784 of 2021
20.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
