P UMAPATHY Vs. S MUTHUPANDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 14.12.2006 made in IA.No.19157 of 2006 in O.S.No: 2391 of 2005 passed by the learned XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) Aggrieved over the dismissal of the Application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order VIII Rule 2, CPC 2 to accept certain documents, he has come forward to this court by way of this revision.

(2.) THE petitioners/defendants have filed the Interpretation Application No: 19157 of 2006 in O.S.No: 2391 of 2005 before the learned XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, to receive (1) the cheque bearing No.650220, drawn on ICICI Bank, (2) Notices exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendants, (3) visiting card of the plaintiff, (4) original complaint copy in CC.No:7957/04, (5) Original video cassette containing the statement of the plaintiff, and (6) copy of the complaint filed before CCB, Egmore, against the plaintiff for forgery and the news published in the paper regarding the complaint in CCB as additional documents. THE suit has been filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,37,600/= with interest at 12% p.a., Pending the same, he has filed the said I.A., to received the abovesaid documents on the ground that the suit has been filed on the basis of the fabricated promissory note not issued by the defendants. It is also averred by them that at the time of filing the written statement, such documents were not available to them. THE respondents/plaintiffs opposed the said application contending that there is no pleading with regard to the documents sought to be produced and if the documents are received the plaintiff will have not opportunity to deny the contents of the documents apart from the fact that after commencement of trial the defendants have no right to produce any evidence. THE learned XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, on a consideration of the averments and the submissions of the learned counsel appeared on either side, partly allowed the I.A., to receive the documents, except Document No.8, which is the Video Cassette as according to him, the same contains the compromise talks between the parties and since the compromise did not fructify, the same cannot be admitted in evidence. Aggrieved of the same, the present revision is filed by the petitioners/defendants.