N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. The suit has been filed for recovery of rental arrears.

2. Proof affidavit of PW1 was received on 20.04.2022 and he was examined on the same day in chief and exhibits were marked. Cross examination of P.W.1 was completed on 12.01.2023. Thereafter, When P.W.2 was present on 28.02.2023, the counsel for the defendant was not ready and hence, the matter was adjourned to 08.03.2023. Thereafter, he was examined and exhibits were marked. On 27.03.2023, he was cross examined. Thereafter, though P.W.3 was examined on 18.04.2023 in chief and exhibits were marked, till now, he has not been cross examined. Though the master had directed the matter to be listed before this court on 22.11.2023, the same was listed before this court on 15.12.2023 after a delay of more than 20 days.

3. The manner in which adjournments have been granted from 2022 would, in fact, clearly indicate that the process of Court has been abused on the Original Side, taking advantage of the fact that the Master or Additional Masters are recording evidence. This Court is of the view that if these kinds of adjournments are allowed, it will not only defeat the very object of the trial, but also, the concept of speedy justice.

4. Considering the nature of adjournments sought in this application is classic example as to how adjournment has been sought at the whims and fancies and the witness has been taken for task. It is also seen from the record that the PW3 has not been cross examined since April 2023.

5. Assessing the conduct of the defendant, this Court is inclined to grant one more opportunity to the defendant to cross examine the witness and adduce the documentary evidences, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 20,000/- to the Cancer Institute, Adyar, Chennai on or before 22.12.2023.

6. Time and again, this Court is faced with cases which are referred to Additional Masters for recording evidence with a fixed timeliness being sent back by the Additional Masters, for simple reason that objections have been raised by one party, while marking of the documents. This has become a ploy to deliberately derail trail by raising all and sundry objections, frivolous or otherwise, at the stage of marking documents resulting in the suit being sent back to the Court once again, in this way system is being deliberately maneuvered causing delay.

7. Most of the cases have been referred by the Master under the premise that they have no power to decide the admissibility of the documents or any evidences. In view of such practice which has developed in the Original Side to refer the matters from the Master or Additional Master to the Court, even when a document sought to be marked, objection is raised only in order to delay the recording of evidence. This Court is of the view that in order to curb such practice necessary directions have to be issued in this regard.

8. In this regard, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Rules of the High Court, Madras, Original Side, 1994.

"Order I Rule 4 (8) defines the "Master" means and includes "Additional Master" of the High Court at Madras;

Order I Rule 4 (3) defines the "Court" includes a Judge, or Master, or First Assistant Registrar, Original Side."

In Sreyas Sripal Vs. Upasana Financial Limited reported in (2007) 4 MLJ 978, a Division Bench of this Court considered the scope of Section 128 (2)(i) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Order XXX Rule 3 of Original Side Rules. Considering the above provision, the Division Bench held that the Master exercised power as delegate under Original Side Rules. It was also observed that where the statute itself has authorised the power to confer upon specific authority, the Statute of delegate is that of an agent.

"Order XVII Rule 13 reads as follows:

"R.13. (1) The oral evidence adduced at the hearing of any suit or other proceedings shall be typed in narrative form to the dictation of the Presiding Judge than and there. The questions put to the witness need not be typed unless the Presiding Judge considers it necessary either suo motu or on request by any counsel appearing in the case to record any particular question. When the evidence is completed the typewritten record shall be read over in the presence of the Judge and of the witness and after correction, if any, signed by the witness in the presence of the Judge, the Judge shall initial the same.

[Provided that in his discretion, the Judge may refer the suit or other proceedings to the Court of Master for recording of evidence:

Provided further than the Master shall record and complete the evidence following the procedure ordinarily followed by the Court and in so doing, shall record the objection, if any, as to oral or documentary evidence or to any portion thereof, as accurately as possible.

(2) Such evidence shall form part of the record.

(3).........

(4)........."

9. The above mentioned provisions would make it very clear that when any suit or proceeding is referred to the Master for recording evidence, the Master is required to record and complete the evidence following procedure "ordinarily followed" by the Court. The meaning of "ordinarily" has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Hemiraj Singh Chauhan reported in (2010) 4 SCC 290 in the following words. The word "ordinarily" would convey the idea of something which is "normally" and "generally" subject to special provision. From the above, it is clear that the second proviso to Order XVII Rule 13, the Master is required to record and complete the evidence. This is an instance of delegation of power contemplated by Section 128(2)(i) of Code of Civil Procedure and Order XXX Rule 3 of the Original Side Rules.

10. The above mentioned provision would make it clear that when any suit or proceeding is referred to Master for recording evidence, the Master assumes the power of a Court and he shall follow the procedure ordinarily followed by the Court to record evidence. It is now an established practice since the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in (2001) 3 SCC 1, that while recording evidence, if any objection is taken as to marking of documents, they record objections and mark the documents, having objections to be decided at the stage of final hearing. The High Court has taken note of this principle and incorporated it in the second proviso to Order XVII Rule 13 by way of amendment in the year 2007.

11. In view of the above, when the power is already vested with the Master to record the objections, referring the matter once again to the Court for the sake of deciding the objections raised by any of the party is not permissible.

12. When a Judge refers a suit or any proceedings for recording of evidence to the Master or Additional Masters, as the case may be, the power to record evidence as contemplated under proviso to Rule 13 of Order XVII is inbuilt and vested with the Master or Additional Master. Therefore, there need not be any separate delegation of powers on the Master or Additional Masters to decide the admissibility of documents, if any, in a suit or any other proceedings, which has been referred to the Master or Additional Masters. It is also made clear that whenever any objection in respect of marking of documents, it is incumbent upon the person making objection, clearly state the ground on which the objections is made. The objections must relate to the aspects of admissibility, relevancy of proof. Vague and omnibus objects need not be recorded. When specific objections are raised, Master shall record the same at the time of marking such objections in the deposition itself within a bracket. Such objection would be decided at the time of final disposal of suit or proceeding by the Court concerned. It is also made clear that whenever secondary evidence sought to be adduced, Master need not refer the matter to Court for filing application in the Court for order. Secondary evidence can be marked with objections. There is no requirement that an application is required to be filed in terms of Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act before the secondary evidence is led, if the party to the suit laid foundation of leading secondary evidence, either in pleading or evidence as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhanpat vs. Sheo Ram (Deceased) reported in (2020) 16 SCC 209. However, when a document is insufficiently stamped, the Master or Additional Masters must refer to the Registrar in terms of Order XXX Rule 4(18) of Original Side Rules for impounding the same for further processing for collection of stamp duty and penalty. Such calculation has to be made by the Registrar of this Court. Once the stamp duty and penalty are paid by the party as determined by the Registrar such document can then be marked as exhibit.

13. In view of the above, the following directions are issued to the Master / Additional Masters:-

"(1) Whenever any objection is made as to the marking of documents of i) admissibility, ii) relevance or iii) proof of document, the Master or Additional Master shall record the reasons and grounds on such objection in the deposition itself and mark the document with objection and proceed further with the recording of evidence;

(2) Whenever any objection is raised with regard to insufficiency of stamp duty, the Master or Additional Masters shall refer the document to the Registrar, who is required under Order XXX Rule 4(18) of the Original Side Rules to examine document and impound the same, if it is insufficiently stamped. Registrar shall, in turn, determine the stamp duty and penalty as per the provisions of Indian Stamp Act, 1899. If the stamp duty and penalty are collected from the party concerned, necessary endorsement shall be made by the Registrar on the instrument and thereafter, the Master or Additional Master shall admit the document in evidence.

(3) The Master or Additional Masters shall follow the above procedure while recording evidence and shall not refer the case to Court merely on the ground that objection was raised marking a document as an exhibit."

The above directions shall be followed by the Master and Additional Masters scrupulously.

14. Post this matter on 22.12.2023 before this Court for reporting compliance.