ORDER
R. Banumathi, J.
1. C.R.P. No. 148 of 2004 is preferred against the Order dated 16.10.2003 of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatti in I.A. No. 193 of 2003 in O.S. No. 70 of 1996, dismissing the Application filed under Order 13, Rule 10(1) and (2), C.P.C read with Rule 74(1) and (2) of Civil Rules of Practice declining to send for the documents pertaining to M.C. No. 6 of 1991 said to be available in Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 2001 on the file of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
2. C.R.P. No. 441 of 2005.-- This Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 6.4.2005 of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatti in I.A. No. 82 of 2005 in O.S. No. 70 of 1996, dismissing the Application under Section 151, C.P.C filed by the Revision Petitioners/ Defendants seeking permission of the Court to mark the deposition of the witnesses in M.C. No. 6 of 1991.
3. For better appreciation of the Parties of the Applications and other contentious points, it is necessary to trace the previous litigations between the Landlord and Tenant, who are entangled in several rounds of litigation, which has led to the Murder of the Landlord-First Defendant.
4. M.C. No. 6 of 1991.-- Wet Land to an extent of about 25 acres is the subject matter of the dispute between the parties. It is stated that the First Defendant was in enjoyment of the Property as the absolute owner of the Suit Property. According to the Plaintiffs, the lands were leased to the Plaintiffs about 15 years ago on Oral Agreement both for reclaiming uncultivable portion and for cultivating the lands, which were already reclaimed on rental basis. The Defendants have alleged that they have taken possession of the properties as per the Surrender Deed dated 16.6.1991. It is said to have been executed by Plaintiffs 1 to 3. On the basis of the said Surrender Deed, it is alleged that the Plaintiffs have handed over the possession of the lands to the First Defendant. There was proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. between the parties in M.C. No. 6 of 1991 before the Executive Magistrate Court, Periyakulam in respect of the Suit Properties. The Executive Magistrate held enquiry and upon examination of the parties and witnesses held by order dated 19.7.1993 that the First Defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the said properties.
5. As against the order passed by the Executive Magistrate in M.C. No. 6 of 1991, the Plaintiffs have preferred Crl.R.C. No. 510 of 1993. Both in M.C. No. 6 of 1991 and in the Criminal Revision Proceedings, the Plaintiffs have denied the genuineness of the alleged Surrender Deed dated 16.6.1991. Confirming the order of the Executive Magistrate Court in Crl.R.C. No. 510 of 1993, the High Court has observed that '...if at all any grievance is available to the Revision Petitioners, it is always open to them to work out their remedy in a Court of law on the basis of Ex.P-1 (the alleged surrender deed dated 16.6.1991)...'.
6. O.S.No. 70 of 1996.-- After the disposal of the Crl.R.C. No. 510 of 1993, the Plaintiffs have filed the Suit for Declaration that they are the cultivating Tenants of the Suit Properties entitled to the protection of Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act and consequently directing the Defendants to deliver the Suit Properties to the Plaintiffs and also for damages and for wrong use and occupation by the Defendants. According to the Plaintiffs, the alleged Surrender Deed dated 16.6.1991 is a fabricated one, which might have been concocted misusing the signatures of Plaintiffs 1 to 3. The Plaintiffs have not executed the alleged Surrender Deed. The Plaintiffs have never surrendered or delivered possession of the Suit Property. The order of the Executive Magistrate passed in M.C. No. 6 of 1991 that the First Defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the Property is void and illegal. The First Defendant is not entitled to take possession of the Suit land surreptitiously from the Plaintiffs, who are cultivating tenants excepting by lawful means. On the strength of the order passed in M.C. No. 6 of 1991, abusing the process of law, the Defendants have taken unlawful possession. Hence, the Suit for declaration that the Plaintiffs are the cultivating Tenants of the Suit Properties and entitled to the protection of Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act and for delivery of possession.
7. The Defendants/Revision Petitioners have filed the Written Statement contending that in consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, accepting the Surrender Deed executed by the Plaintiff on 16.6.1991, the Executive Magistrate rightly found that the First Defendant is in possession. The First Defendant has been paying Fertilizer Bill, House Tax Receipts, E.B. Charges, Land Revenue and other charges. In Crl.R.C. No. 510 of 1993 also, the High Court has confirmed the order in M.C. No. 6 of 1991. The Plaintiffs being not in possession are not entitled to seek any relief. According to the Defendants, an area of 1.25 acres is the purchased land of the Second Defendant-Anand from the First Plaintiff. An extent of 30.35 acres had been assigned under Land Ceiling Act and the same was cultivated and enjoyed in joint cultivation and management by the Defendants. Balance extent of 13.40 acres-the First Defendant had taken the same on lease from one G.N. Venkatapathi Naidu, Coimbatore. As per the document, the other property is in management of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs were only under agricultural supervision of the properties and getting 2/3 income balance of 1/3 income agreed to be taken by the First Defendant. The Plaintiffs are alleged to have tampered the Account Books making corrections thereon. The Defendants have alleged that the Plaintiffs have conspired together to commit the Murder of the First Defendant at Theni.
8. The Murder case ended in Conviction. Against the verdict of conviction, the Plaintiffs are said to have preferred Criminal Appeal before the High Court in C.A. No. 346 of 2001 and C.A. No. 294 of 2001. As against the acquittal of some of other Accused, the Defendants are said to have preferred Revision in Crl.R.C. No. 1708 of 2001. It is stated that all the records relating to M.C. No. 6 of 1991 have been placed before the High Court in the said Criminal Appeal Crl.A. No. 346 of 2001 (Crl.A. No. 294 of 2001).
9. I.A. No. 193 of 2003.-- This Application was filed under Order 13, Rule 10(1) and (2), C.P.C r/w Rule 74(1) and (2) of Civil Rules of Practice to summon the documents available before the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 2001. The Defendants have alleged that the documents included the Original Surrender Deed dated 16.6.1991 and the Typed Set in M.C. No. 6 of 1991 and the proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. According to the Defendants/Revision Petitioners, the Surrender Deed and the deposition in M.C. No. 6 of 1991 are of great relevance for adjudicating the present suit in O.S. No. 70 of 1996. Since the Defendants are not able to secure the Certified copy of the Surrender Deed and the records in M.C. No. 6 of 1991, the Application has been filed to send for the documents available in Crl.A. No. 346 of 2001, including the Surrender Deed dated 16.6.1991 and the Deposition in M.C. No. 6 of 1991.
10. It is alleged that the earlier Application in I.A. No. 95 of 2001 filed by the Plaintiffs was resisted by the Defendants herein contending that the document dated 16.6.1991 is not vital to the case. I.A. No. 95 of 2001 was dismissed. While so, the application filed by the Defendants to send for the Document-Surrender Deed dated 16.6.1991 and the deposition in M.C. No. 6 of 1991 cannot be sustained.
11. The lower Court dismissed the Application inter alia finding:
. that the Application has been filed belatedly;
. availability of the documents in Crl.A. No. 346 of 2001 has not been proved; the Document-Surrender Deed dated 16.6.1991 is said to have been available only in Crl.R.C. No. 1708 of 2001;
. no due and prompt steps had been taken by the Defendants to obtain a certified copy; the certified copy of those documents could be well produced.
12. I.A. No. 82 of 2005 -- This Application was filed by the Defendants under Section 151, C.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to mark the 'deposition of Witnesses in M.C. No. 6 of 1991' as documents before the Trial Court. According to the Defendants, the deposition of the Witnesses recorded in M.C.No. 6 of 1991 is very much relevant for adjudicating the facts in issue in O.S. No. 70 of 1996.
13. The Plaintiffs have opposed the Application contending that the deposition in M.C. No. 6 of 1991 have not been recorded as per the Civil Procedure Code. The Plaintiffs have further alleged that the Proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate under Section 105, Cr.P.C. are inadmissible in the Civil Proceedings.
14. The lower Court dismissed the Application finding inter alia:
. the criminal proceedings have no binding effect on the Civil Court;
. the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate (Sub-Collector) Periyakulam has recorded the deposition in English while the Witnesses are Tamil speaking and that there is nothing to indicate that the Witnesses have understood the depositions recorded in English;
. Evidence adduced before the Criminal Court is not binding on the Civil Court.
15. Aggrieved against the order of dismissal of the findings in I.A. No. 193 of 2003 and I.A. No. 82 of 2005, the Defendants have preferred these Revision Petitions. Assailing the Impugned Orders, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/Defendants contended that when the subject matter in both the Suit and in M.C. No. 6 of 1991 are one and the same, the deposition recorded in M.C. No. 6 of 1991 is very much relevant for the determination of the Suit in O.S. No. 70 of 1996. The impugned order is assailed contending that the earlier proceedings in M.C. No. 6 of 1991 and the depositions thereon has a bearing effect though not a binding effect. It is further submitted that the lower Court has overlooked the fact that the deposition given in M.C. No. 6 of 1991 was never objected by the Plaintiffs at the time of letting in evidence and when no objection was raised at that juncture, the Court below erred in refusing to mark those documents.
16. On behalf of the Petitioners/Defendants it is further contended that the entire dispute in O.S. No. 70 of 1996 revolves around the genuineness of the Surrender Deed dated 16.6.1991 and the Court below ought to have called for the Original Surrender Document. It is further contended that unless the original is produced before the Court, the Defendants cannot establish the surrender which is the main and vital issue involved in the Suit between the Parties. It is also submitted that the Certified Copy of the Document would not serve the purpose in the light of denial of genuineness of the document by the Plaintiffs.
17. Countering the arguments, learned Counsel for the Respondents/ Plaintiffs has submitted that the deposition of the Witnesses in M.C. No. 6 of 1991 is no way relevant since the same is not covered under any of the circumstances under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further submitted that the Defendants could have very well produced the certified copy of the Surrender document dated 16.06.1991. Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Plaintiffs has also urged that under Order 13, Rule 10, C.P.C., the document could be called for only if the Certified Copy of the document cannot be obtained. Submitting that the lower Court has rightly found that the deposition recorded in Criminal Proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. have no binding effect on the Civil Court, learned District Munsif has rightly dismissed the Applications and there is no reason warranting interference with the impugned orders.
18. Upon consideration of contentions of both parties, Impugned Order and other materials on record, the following points arise for consideration in these Civil Revision Petitions:
. When the Surrender Deed dated 16.6.1991 is the basis of the Defence, whether the lower Court was right in dismissing the Petition in I.A. No. 193 of 2003 ?
. Whether the Certified Copy of the Deposition of the Witnesses in M.C. No. 6 of 1991 do not have bearing and whether the reasonings for declining to receive the certified copy of the deposition of Witnesses are legally sustainable ?
19. The Surrender Deed is dated 16.6.1991, pursuant to which the First Defendant is alleged to have taken possession of the Suit Properties. The Deed of Surrender is said to be executed by Plaintiffs 1 to 3. Ayyalusamy-Brother-in-law of Second Plaintiff, Ramakrishnan, Seenivasagam, Ramasamy, Ramamoorthy, Krishnasamy are said to have attested the Deed of Surrender. According to the Defendants, the Document is inadmissible in evidence and the First Defendant was continuously in possession of the Properties from 16.6.1991. The Plaintiffs categorically deny the Execution of any Deed of Surrender on 16.6.1991 as alleged by the Defendants. According to the Plaintiffs, the alleged Surrender Deed is a fabricated one and the Plaintiffs categorically deny the Execution of any such Deed of Surrender or delivery of possession. Further contention of the Plaintiffs is that on the basis of the order obtained in M.C. No. 6 of 1991 passed on 19.7.1993, the First Defendant has lodged a false police complaint alleging trespass and other offences. On the alleged possession of the Suit Property, criminal cases are registered against both the parties. Under such facts and circumstances of the case, the main dispute between the parties revolves around the Surrender Deed and the document dated 16.6.1991 is a vital document.
20. The First Defendant was murdered. Second and Third Plaintiffs and Deceased First Plaintiff-Perumalsamy, Ayyalusamy were arrayed as Accused in S.C. No. 244 of 1994. It is stated that the Accused were convicted for Life Sentence, against which Criminal Appeals were preferred in C.A. Nos. 346 of 2001 and 294 of 2001. As the Surrender Deed has been marked as the document on the side of the Prosecution in S.C. No. 244 of 1994, the same has been sent to High Court along with the case Records in C.A. No. 346 of 2001 (C.A. No. 294/2001). For effective adjudication and resolving the dispute, the Deed of Surrender is an essential document.
21. The lower Court has dismissed the Application declining to send for the document mainly on the ground (i) that the Defendants could have produced the Certified Copy of the document; (ii) Already there is a direction by the High Court to dispose of the Suit before 28.11.2003. The Certified Copy of the Deed of Surrender is of no use. Since the Plaintiffs have denied the Execution of the Deed of Surrender and contend that it is a fabricated document, the certified copy of the Deed of Surrender would not be of any use. While so, the lower Court was not right in saying that the Defendants ought to have produced the Certified Copy of the Deed of Surrender. Likewise, the time frame fixed by the High Court to dispose of the Suit before 28.11.2003 cannot be the reason for declining to send for the document. Perhaps the lower Court might have been reluctant to send for the document from High Court under the impression that it might amount to an Act of insubordination. Since the Deed of Surrender dated 16.06.1991 is the sheet anchor of the defence, the Document is a vital document for adjudicating the dispute between the parties. It is also relevant to be noted that one Mr. K. Ramakrishnan-Assistant Director Forensic Department was also examined to prove the execution of the Document. Under such circumstances, the Original Deed of Surrender is very much essential. The Impugned Order declining to send for the same from High Court available in Criminal Appeal Nos. 346 of 2001 (C.A. No. 294 of 2001) is set aside ordering sending for the document by issuing suitable directions to substitute the Original with the Certified Copy of the Xerox.
22. The Original Deed of Surrender available in Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 2001 (C.A. No. 294 of 2001) is ordered to be sent to the District Munsif Court, Aundipatti in a Sealed Cover through a Special Messenger from Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Registry is directed to substitute the Original Deed of Surrender with the Xerox Copy of the Deed of Surrender (certified by a responsible officer of the Registry) and the same may be kept in the Records in Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 2001 (C.A. No. 294 of 2001). It is further ordered that after the Trial is over, the Defendants are to substitute the Original Document in O.S. No. 70 of 1996 by the Certified Copy in the District Munsif Court, Aundipatti and on such substitution, learned District Munsif, Aundipatti shall send back the original to the High Court for being kept in the records in the Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 2001 (C.A. No. 294 of 2001).
23. Admissibility of deposition of Witnesses in M.C. No. 6 of 1991:
I.A. No. 82 of 2005 was filed to produce the deposition of the Witnesses in M.C. No. 6 of 1991. The Defendants were the Petitioners in the Proceeding and the Plaintiffs were the Counter Petitioners in M.C. No. 6 of 1991 before the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate. Before the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, on behalf of the Petitioners side Eight Witnesses were examined -- (i) Ayyalusamy (Deceased First Defendant); (ii) Lakshmanan ; (iii) K. Ramakrishnan-Assistant Director Forensic Department; (iv) K. Seenivasagam-Inspector-Vigilance; (v) K. Ramasamy-Agriculturalist; (vi) N. Ramamoorthy-Clerk of Commission Mandy; (vii) M. Krishnasamy-Broker; (viii) K. Badrinarayanan-Liaison Officer, Rajshree Sugars (examined as D.W.6) and on behalf of the Counter Petitioners/ Plaintiffs, three Witnesses were examined.
24. In I.A. No. 193 of 2003, the Defendants prayed to send for the deposition of Witnesses in M.C. No. 6 of 1991. That application was dismissed saying that the Certified Copy of the Deposition of Witnesses could be produced. When I.A. No. 82 of 2005 was filed to receive the Certified Copy of the deposition of the Witnesses in M.C. No. 6 of 1991, that Application was dismissed by the lower Court on the flimsy ground that the depositions were recorded in English by the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate. The lower Court was of the view that there is nothing to indicate that the Witnesses have agreed to the deposition and signed after understanding their English version. The lower Court declined to receive the Certified Copy of the Deposition of Witnesses in M.C. No. 6 of 1991 on the ground that the Depositions are not properly certified by the Recording Magistrate. The lower Court was not right in doubting the correctness of the Certified Copy of the Deposition recorded by a responsible Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate. Under Section 114, Illustration (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, the rule of presumption is embodied i.e. all judicial and other acts are presumed to have been rightly and regularly performed. This presumption is mainly applied to the judicial and official acts. When the official act of the Executive Magistrate in recording the deposition of witnesses was performed, the presumption arises that the said Act was performed in accordance with law. The presumption arises on the ground of public policy. Without keeping in mind the presumption under Section 114, Illustration (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, the lower Court erred in doubting the correctness of the deposition of Witnesses recorded in M.C. No. 6 of 1991. It is pertinent to note that the Plaintiffs have neither denied the proceeding in M.C. No. 6 of 1991 nor denied their examination in the earlier proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C.
25. The admissibility of the deposition of Witnesses in M.C.No. 6 of 1991 is very much assailed on the ground that the evidence of the Witnesses recorded in the previous proceedings are inadmissible in evidence excepting the circumstances under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act. Under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, the evidence given by a Witness in a judicial proceeding or before any person authorised by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving in a subsequent judicial proceedings when the witness is dead or cannot be found. Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows:
33. Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts therein stated.-- Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorised by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considered unreasonable:
Provided--
that the proceeding was between the same parties or their representatives in interest;
that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine;
that the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceedings.
26. The First Plaintiff-Ayyappa Naicker is dead. The First Defendant-Ayyalusamy is also dead (murdered). Hence, the deposition of Deceased First Plaintiff Ayyappa Naicker and the Deceased First Defendant Ayyalusamy are relevant and admissible in evidence under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act. There cannot be any valid objection regarding the admissibility of the deposition of the First Plaintiff and the First Defendant.
27. The Second Plaintiff-Perumalsamy was examined as P.W.1 on the side of the Plaintiffs. He was earlier examined as Second Witness in M.C. No. 6 of 1991 on the side of the Counter Petitioners/Plaintiffs. The deposition of Perumalsamy could be admitted for the purpose of contradiction under Sections 145 and 155 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act relates to impeaching the credit of the Witness. Under Section 155(3), the credit of the Witness could be impeached 'by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted'. Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act also enables a Witness to be cross-examined and contradicted with reference to his previous statement in Writing. Section 155 enumerates different methods for impeaching the credit of a Witness. One such method is the proof of former inconsistent statement. Section 155 stresses that the contradiction by previous inconsistent Statement must be confined only to the matters relevant to the issue and not with regard to the irrelevant matters. As noted earlier, M.C. No. 6 of 1991 was the proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. wherein the Parties have agitated the matter before the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate with regard to possession of the property in dispute. Hence, the deposition recorded in the earlier proceedings in M.C. No. 6 of 1991 is relevant for the purpose of contradicting the Second Plaintiff-Perumalsamy, who has been examined as P.W.1 in the Suit.
28. Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act also gives the right to cross-examine the Witness (P.W.1)-Second Plaintiff on previous statement made by him before the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, which was recorded by the Executive Magistrate. Although a part of the Statement deposition or other writing may be received for the purpose of impeaching the credit of a Witness, the entire deposition could be received, which would explain the inconsistency or removing the discrepancies. Hence, the whole of deposition of the Second Plaintiff-Perumalsamy is to be received. Though he was not confronted with reference to his earlier statement while he was earlier examined in the Suit, an opportunity is to be afforded to the Defendants to recall and to further examine P.W.1 in the light of his earlier statement recorded in M.C. No. 6 of 1991.
29. On the side of the Defendants, so far totally six witnesses have been examined in O.S. No. 70 of 1996. The Sixth Witness-Badrinarayanan is the Liaison Officer, Rajshree Sugars. He was also examined in M.C. No. 6 of 1991 as Eighth Witness on the side of the Petitioners/Defendants. His deposition is also sought to be marked in the present suit. Section 157, Indian Evidence Act relates to the corroborating of the testimony of the witnesses. As per Section 157, the Witnesses' former statement may be proved in order to corroborate his present testimony. The essential ingredient of Section 157 is that the Witness should have already given the evidence with respect of some fact and he had stated earlier the same fact at the time, when the fact took place or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact. Since Badrinarayanan-Liaison Officer was already examined in M.C. No. 6 of 1991, his earlier deposition may be received under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act for the limited purpose of corroborating testimony within the ambit of Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act.
30. On behalf of the Defendants, the testimony of all the Witnesses in M.C. No. 6 of 1991 are sought to be produced. The statement of all the Witnesses recorded in M.C. No. 6 of 1991 cannot be received in toto. As discussed earlier, they could be received only for the limited purpose of either contradicting or corroborating the evidence under Sections 145, 155 and 157 of the Indian Evidence Act of the persons who are already dead. Apart from the above provisions, the Defendants cannot seek to produce the deposition of all the other Witnesses recorded in M.C. No. 6 of 1991. Deposition of all other Witnesses are not admissible in evidence. If any further Witnesses are examined before the Trial Court those of the Witnesses who were already examined in M.C. No. 6 of 1991 and their statement may be relevant and would be admissible.
31. The lower Court was not right in dismissing the Petition I.A. No. 82 of 2005 in toto. The testimony of Deceased First Plaintiff, First Defendant Second Plaintiff Perumalsamy and D.W.6-Badrinarayanan ought to have been received. The Impugned Order is illegal, erroneous and suffers from serious material irregularity and cannot be sustained.
32. C.R.P. No. 148 of 2004.-- For the foregoing reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the Order dated 16.10.2003 of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatti in I.A. No. 193 of 2003 in O.S. No. 70 of 1996. The Original Deed of Surrender available in Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 2001 (C.A. No. 294 of 2001) is ordered to be sent to the District Munsif Court, Aundipatti in a Sealed Cover through a Special Messenger from Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. (Sample seal is to be sent in a separate cover for ensuring that the seal is intact). Registry is directed to substitute the Original Deed of Surrender with the Xerox Copy of the Deed of Surrender (certified by a responsible officer of the Registry) and the same may be kept in the Records in Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 2001 (C.A. No. 294 of 2001). It is further ordered that after the Trial is over, the Defendants are to substitute the Original Document in O.S. No. 70 of 1996 by the Certified Copy in the District Munsif Court, Aundipatti and on such substitution, learned District Munsif, Aundipatti shall send back the Original Deed of Surrender to the High Court for being kept in Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 2001 (C.A. No. 294 of 2001).
33. C.R.P. No. 441 of 2005-- For the foregoing reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 6.4.2005 of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatti in I.A. No. 82 of 2005 in O.S. No. 70 of 1996. Learned District Munsif, Aundipatti is directed to receive the testimony of Deceased First Plaintiff - Ayyappa Naicker, First Defendant-Ayyalusamy, Second Plaintiff-Perumalsamy (P.W.1) and Badrinarayanan (D.W.6) recorded in M.C. No. 6 of 1991. The learned District Munsif is directed to afford sufficient opportunity to both parties to further examine the Witnesses (P.W.1 and D.W.6) in reference to their statement in M.C. No. 6 of 1991.
34. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are ordered accordingly. The connected C.M.P. Nos. 1572 of 2004 and 3383 of 2005 are closed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Learned District Munsif, Aundipatti is directed to dispose of the Suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the Original Deed of Surrender or Copy of this order, whichever is later.