Madras High Court
Ramesh @ Video Ramesh vs The Editor on 1 August, 2023
C.R.P.No.3315 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.3315 of 2019
Ramesh @ Video Ramesh ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Editor, Dina Malar,
Having Office at No.219,
Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
2.Susi Ganesan
3.Robin ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, pleased to set aside the fair and decreetal order
of the Hon'ble VI Additional City Civil Court at Chennai in
I.A.No.6060 of 2016 in O.S.No.11866 of 2010 dated 14.08.2019.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3315 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Srinivas
For Respondents : No Appearance
**********
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff to set
aside the fair and decreetal order of the VI Additional City Civil
Court at Chennai in I.A.No.6060 of 2016 in O.S.No.11866 of 2010
dated 14.08.2019.
2. The suit is one for damages. The plaintiff would state that on
account of the fact that a bus was parked in the middle of a busy
road, it resulted in a traffic jam. As a public spirited individual, he
called upon the police to remove the bus. The spectators were not
aware of the fact that a song was being recorded in the bus for a
movie by name "Kandasami".
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3315 of 2019
3. Mr.R.Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
would submit that the bus was used in shooting a tamil song by
name "Bambarakannalee" (gk;guf;fz;zhny). He wanted to
produce this CD before the Court to substantiate the case. This
application was resisted by the second defendant on the ground that
the song was not shot at that time when the traffic jam occurred and
therefore, the document is irrelevant. The application came to be
dismissed.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition has
been filed. I carefully considered the submissions made on either
side.
5. A party wants to file documents, that has been snuffed out at
the initial stage. No prejudice would be caused to either side if the
document is received as evidence subject to its relevancy and proof.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3315 of 2019
Whether the incident in fact took place at the place alleged by the
plaintiff or at a place different from where it had taken place, are all
matters to be considered at the trial stage. We are in the initial stage.
The documents shall be admitted. At the stage of admission, the
plaintiff wants to prove the connection between the bus and the
movie. For this purpose, he had sought for marking the documents.
I feel the Court below could have allowed this application. That
would have been in line with the judgment of the Supreme Court in
1998(3) SCC 1.
6. Consequently, the order passed in I.A.No.6060 of 2016 in
O.S.No.11866 of 2010 dated 14.08.2019 is set aside. The plaintiff is
permitted to mark his documents subject to relevancy and proof. I
have not given any finding on the merits of the case. It is for the
Court below to mark the evidence and give a final conclusion, after
the documents are received and evidences are recorded. The learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3315 of 2019
Judge is requested to dispose of the suit within a period of three
months from the date of closure of evidence of P.W.1.
01.08.2023
rna
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
The VI Additional City Civil Court at Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3315 of 2019
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN.J,
rna
C.R.P.No.3315 of 2019
01.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
