P.Kesan, S/O.Parasuraman v. Girdharilal Chandak And Brs (Huf) And 7 Others

A.No.1070 of 2023 in C.S.No.26 of 2011 A.No.1070 of 2023 in C.S.No.26 of 2011 N.SESHASAYEE.J., This application has been filed to pass an order to allow the applicant / defendant No.4 to produce documents in the above suit.

2.Learned counsel for the plaintiffs raises an objection vis-a-vis the second of the documents now sought to be introduced in the evidence by the 4th defendant. This document is stated to be a report of the bailiff of the Small Causes Court, Chennai with certain annexures. According to the plaintiffs, this document is a fabricated one.

3.It is underscored that mere introduction of a document in evidence is of zero value unless it is proved through the bailiff concerned. The plaintiffs are at liberty to take such objection before the learned Additional Master No.III. Hence, even if the second document is marked by the 4th defendant, it will only tantamount to introducing the document in evidence but cannot substitute its proof essentially when the document is not admitted by the plaintiffs. 1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.No.1070 of 2023 in C.S.No.26 of 2011 N.SESHASAYEE.J., Anu 4.So far as other documents are concerned, the same can be marked subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility.

5.This application stands allowed accordingly. 02.03.2023 (1/2) Anu A.No.1070 of 2023 in C.S.No.26 of 2011 2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis