KURIAN GEORGE Vs. ANNAMMA GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order in I.A.NO.1734 of 2018 in O.S.No.90 of 2011, on the files of Munsiff's Court, Punalur. The petitioner herein filed the above application under Order XVIII Rule 19 and Order XXVI, Rules 4 and 4A of CPC for appointing an Advocate Commissioner for recording evidence of the witnesses. The said application was dismissed by the court and the court preferred to examine the witnesses by himself. The challenge is against the said order.

(2.) Ordinarily, a petitioner will be aggrieved by the orders of the court, appointing a Commissioner, but here it is a case where petitioner is aggrieved by not appointing a Commissioner. The court, by a speaking order, dismissed the application. It is a fact that a detailed discussion is not warranted, when the Presiding Officer himself is intending or taken the burden to record the evidence.

(3.) Another aspect highlighted is that the court is prejudiced and thus he wants his witnesses get examined through a Commissioner. There also, it can be seen that the Commissioner is appointed by the Court, and actually thereby delegating the duty of recording the evidence to a Commissioner. It is also seen that the court found that this is not a case where a Commissioner has to be appointed to record the case. The petitioner herein is appeared in person. When there is a finding of the court to the effect that court itself is going to record the evidence, which is a normal thing, no interference by this Court is warranted under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the Original Petitions (Civil) is dismissed.