M/S.Bharani Pictures Private Limited v. Doordarshan Kendra (Saptagiri Channel) And Another

A.No.2626 of 2020 in C.S.No.380 of 2019 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

This application has been filed seeking permission to produce additional documents. The documents which had been listed out are Deeds of Partnership, Reconstitution Deed, Certificate of Incorporation and Resolution passed in a meeting of the Board of Directors. 2.In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it had been stated that when the proof affidavit of PW-1 was sought to be settled, it was noticed that the said documents have not been filed and that they were relevant and that therefore this application has been filed to seek permission to produce the above mentioned documents. 3.It had been stated that each one of the documents are relevant to decide the issues in controversy in the suit. At any rate, issue of relevancy can be decided only during the course of trial on the basis of evidence let in by the witness. It is also seen that only the copies of the documents are sought to be marked and it had been stated that the originals shall be produced for comparison.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the respondent also. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

smv 5.This application is pending for a quite sometime for filing of counter.

6.Putting the plaintiff to test on the issues of admissibility, relevancy and proof of documents, and also on the reasons for not producing the same at the time of institution of the suit, which facts should withstand crossexamination and analyzed at the time of arguments, this application is allowed. No order as to costs.

18.03.2021 1/2 smv A.No.2626 of 2020 in C.S.No.380 of 2019 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/