R. Subramanian ORDER
R. Subramanian, J.
1. This application has been filed seeking the applicant/6th defendant to strike out the deposition of D.W.1, recorded on 23.01.2017 and 19.06.2017 and to strike out the Exhibits marked as Exs. P30, P31 and P32, as according to the applicant, the procedure adopted in recording the said evidence and in marking those documents is against the Rules of the Original Side of this Court and the questions put in cross-examination to the witness are per se defamatory.
2. The suit in CS No. 803 of 2011 is for a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property, for a declaration that the sale deed executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of defendants 3 to 5 dated 14.06.2010, the sham and nominal and not binding on the plaintiff in as much as the 2nd defendant has no salable interest over the said property, for a declaration declaring the purported sale deed executed by defendants 3 to 5 on 08.08.2011 in favour of the 6th defendant as sham and nominal and not binding on the plaintiff and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property or in the alternative for recovery of possession of the property. The 6th defendant in the suit, viz. CS No. 803 of 2011, has filed another suit in CS No. 159 of 2012 seeking a declaration of his title and for permanent injunction. These suits went for trial, the 6th defendant in CS No. 803 of 2011 was examined as D.W.1.
3. During the course of the evidence, in cross-examination, the documents, viz. Exs. P30, P31 and P32 were marked. Exhibit P30 is an interim order passed in IA No. 13533 of 2011 in OS No. 6469 of 2011, wherein the application for injunction filed by the said witness, who was also the plaintiff in the said suit, directing maintenance of status quo by the parties. The witness as well as the plaintiff in the present suit are the parties to the said proceedings. Ex. P31 is the certified copy of the order passed in OSA Nos. 328 and 329 of 2012. The said appeals have been filed by the said witness, viz. D.W.1 against the orders passed in Transfer Application No. 1823 of 2012 and Original Application No. 187 of 2012. While the appeal against the order in Transfer Application No. 1823 of 2012 has been dismissed as infructuous. This Court had only directed the maintenance of status quo, as directed by the City Civil Court in IA No. 13533 of 2011 in OS No. 6469 of 2011, while disposing of the appeal against OA No. 187 of 2012. The third document, viz. Ex. P32, which is the sale deed executed by D.W.1 in favour of one Siva Chidambaram, with reference to a major portion of the suit property subject matter of CS No. 803 of 2011.
4. It is seen that these documents were marked in cross-examination of the said witness, the witness has not denied the truth or genuineness of those documents, in fact he has admitted the documents. The main ground on which the learned counsel for the applicant would claim that the marking of those documents in Cross-examination of D.W.1, is against the procedure prescribed in the Original Side Rules is that it is in violation of Order IX Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules, Rule 8 reads as follows:
"Rule 8: If an affidavit of documents has been ........