KOVILPATTI SRI DHANDAYUTHAPANI TRUST Vs. M TILAKARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the Order in i. A. No. 1610 of 1992 in O. S. No. 330 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif, kovilpatti, in which the learned District Munsif has passed an order, holding that the document dated 23. 8. 1992 is not admissible in evidence.

(2.) SHORT facts are: The respondent has filed the suit in o. S. No. 330 of 1992 for permanent injunction against the petitioner herein. He also filed petition in I. A. No. 1610 of 1992 under 0. 39, Rule 1 and sec. l51,c. P. C. ,prayingfor temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with his possession. That was opposed by the revision petitioner herein who was the respondent in the trial court. In that enquiry, the revision petitioner herein had filed the document dated 23. 8. 1992 given by the respondent herein, duly attested by two witnesses. Objection was raised f6r eceiving it in evidence. On that objection, the learned District Munsif has passed an order, holding that it is not admissible in evidence. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.

(3.) MR. Peppin Fernando, would submit that now plaint has been amended and now the relief sought for is for recovery of possession. In case this document was relied upon for extinguishment of the leasehold rights, definitely the trial court can reject such an argument. Suffice it for me to state at this juncture that the lower court is wrong in rejecting this document totally and ought to have received it in evidence for the collateral purpose of showing possession.