C.S.Balakrishnan (Deceased) 1.K.Muthu v. T.Amudan Antony (Decd.) 1.K.Devi

A.No.2937 of 2025 in C.S.No.600 of 2011 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

The Application has been filed seeking to introduce further documents namely, report of an Advocate Commissioner who had been appointed during the proceedings in A.S.No.380 of 2006 pursuant to order in I.A.No.950 of 2007 dated 12.07.2007 by the VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. That particular Appeal Suit had been filed by the 1st defendant herein. In that Appeal Suit, an Advocate Commissioner had been appointed and the plaintiff herein seeks to mark the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner. 2.A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents / defendants in fact representing the appellant in A.S.No.380 of 2006 and two points had been raised namely, the issue of delay in introducing the document and also that the document is not directly relevant to the issues in the suit. 3.

However, relevancy is an issue which could be examined only after the document is produced and marked as exhibit. The learned counsel has sought permission to produce the copy of the report of the Advocate Commissioner. If no issue is raised about the correctness of the contents, then the document as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

smv introduced could be marked as evidence during the course of trial subject to relevancy, proof and genuinity, this Application stands allowed. 22.07.2025 smv A.No.2937 of 2025 in C.S.No.600 of 2011 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis