KALAVATHI D/O. LATE V.C. VENKATACHALLAM AND SRI V.P. SURESH KUMAR S/O. LATE V. PANDURANGAM Vs. C.M. ABU MOHAMMED SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS (SMT. C.A. ZOHRA W/O LATE ABU MOHAMMED AND OTHERS) AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS 1 and 2 are defendants No. 4 and 3(a) in O.S. No. 16707/2002. They have Sled this writ petition seeking a direction to the trial Court to appoint a translator and also for a further direction to permit the petitioner to mark certain documents.

(2.) ON an earlier occasion, petitioners had approached this Court in W.P. No. 9720/2009 seeking a direction to the Deputy Registrar, City Civil Court, Mayo Hall Unit, to issue certified copies of certain documents which they intended to mark in their evidence. The said Writ petition has been disposed off on 09.04.2009. In paragraph 7 of the said order passed by this Court, it is observed that petitioners intended to rely upon the documents in HRC Petition No. 200/1975 and Execution Case No. 353/1977 which they were not diligent to secure all these years since 2002. It has been further ordered in the said writ petition that only to ensure that the proceedings were not unnecessarily protracted, this Court had issued in the earlier Writ Petitions bearing W.P. No. 9719/2009 and 9853 -54/2009, a direction that within two weeks the petitioners shall complete their evidence and no further time will be granted to them. Despite the said condition, they again came up in W.P. No. 9720/2009 C/w. W.P.9864/2009 stating that certified copies of the documents were not supplied to them. When such a grievance was made. Counsel for the respondents submitted that they had no objection for producing the xerox copies of the documents in HRC Petition No. 200/1975 and Execution Case No. 353/1977. In that view of the matter, this Court permitted the petitioners to mark xerox copies of the documents subject to the condition that the petitioner produces the certified copies within the time to be fixed by the Trial Court. Observation was also made to the effect that the Registry, City Civil Court, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore shall make necessary endeavours to issue the certified copies of the document applied by the petitioners as early as possible. It was also made very clear that no further opportunity will be given to the petitioners for production of any other documents or for any other evidence in the matter and that the parties shall co -operate with the court below in ensuring that the proceedings attain finality expeditiously.

(3.) PLACING reliance on Rule 66 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that when a witness gives evidence in a language not understood by the Court, the Presiding Judge is authorised to employ an interpreter and therefore as the Counsel for the defendants did not know Tamil and as the Court also did not know Tamil, without appointing a Translator cross -examination could not have been proceeded with. He draws the attention of the Court to a memo filed before the Court requesting for appointment of a Translator. A copy of the memo is produced at Annexure -A to the Writ Petition. The defendant, being a Tamilian claims that she does not know English properly. The witness sought for a Translator, but the Court allegedly refused to appoint a Translator. A memo is allegedly filed before the Court in this regard.