- (1.)THE petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.452 of 2004. THE petitioner herein/defendant has filed I.A.No.50/2004 seeking to condone the delay in filing a document, which is an unregistered sale deed said to have been executed by the plaintiff and her mother in favour of the defendant. THE learned Additional District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai, dismissed the application on the ground that an unregistered sale deed cannot be marked even for collateral purpose. THE trial court observed in its order that since the plaintiff admitted the possession of the petitioner herein/defendant and the suit itself only for recovery of possession, the document which is to be marked for the collateral purpose cannot be accepted.
(2.)MR.S.Sounther, the learned counsel for the petitioner herein/defendant contended that the document is a unregistered sale deed executed by the plaintiff and her mother during 1979. According to him, the practice in that particular area was that though a property is sold by executing the sale deed, it is not registered. Further, it is true that the possession of the defendant was admitted by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendant is in possession of the property from six months prior to filing of the suit. But according to the defendant, he was in possession of the property from 1979 onwards. Therefore, the defendant would have dispossessed the plaintiff at least six months prior to the suit. For that purpose, the defendant wants to mark an unregistered sale deed said to have been executed by the plaintiff and her mother. For the purpose of producing the said sale deed, the defendant has filed I.A.No.50/2006 to condone the delay in producing the said document. The trial Court dismissed the said application. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
The learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court reported in 2001(2) CTC 391 (S.Mohammad Ali Vs. Basheer Ahmed), wherein it has been held as follows: 20. Inability to trace the documents and to produce the same at the time of presenting the written statement, in the experience of human beings, are neither improbable nor strange and if that be so, such reasons are neither absurd nor capricious. But, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge while refusing permission to the petitioner to produce the documents sought to be produced under Order 13, Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, in his order dated 06.10.1999, instead of weighing whether the reason, viz., the revision petitioner could not produce the documents earlier had driven himself to decide as to the admissibility of the said documents, which in my considered opinion, is not permissible for the Court while exercising the power under Rules 1 and 2 of Order 13 of the Civil procedure Code, as condoning of delay in producing the documents belatedly is not beyond the scope of Order 13, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. On the other hand, expressing any opinion as to the admissibility of the said documents at that stage is beyond the scope of Order 13, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, while passing an order on the application to condone the delay in producing a document, the Presiding Officer need not go into the admissibility of the document, but he should go into the reason stated in the affidavit for the delay in producing the document.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision of this Court reported in 1998(1) LW 208 (Kousalya Ammal Vs. Valliammai Ammal & another), wherein Honourable Justice AR.Lakshmanan (as his lord ship then was) has observed as follows:

Therefore on consideration of the entire materials placed before me and of the arguments advanced by both sides, I am of the view that the document in question can certainly be looked into for collateral purposes, namely, for the purpose of proving the plaintiffs character of possession. No prejudice should be caused to the respondent by marking the document. Mere marking the document does not prove any of the recitals of the document itself. The truth of the document had to be independently proved. It is always open to the respondent to contend that he did not execute the document at all and that even for a collateral purpose, it cannot be relied on. The Principle laid down in the above cited cases is squarely applicable to the case on hand. The petitioner herein has produced an unregistered sale deed to prove his case. The same shall be accepted subject to the objections. The document produced by the defendant may be useful to determine as to whether the defendant is in possession of the property from just six months before filing of the suit or he is in possession of the suit property from 1979.

Considering the above circumstances, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order passed in I.A.No.50/2006 in O.S.No.452 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai is set aside. The trial Court is directed to accept the document produced by the petitioner herein and dispose of the suit on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is closed.