S RAMACHANDRA REDDY Vs. NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 253 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam are the revision Petitioners.

(2.) In that suit the Defendants examined their Power Agent as DW1 and thereafter filed I.A. No. 1372 of 2010 for the appointment of Advocate Commissioner to examine the 1st Defendant as DW2 and that petition was dismissed and against the same this revision is filed.

(3.) Mr. M.S. Subramanian, the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioners submitted that there is no need to file a separate application seeking permission of the Court to examine the party after the examination of the witnesses and in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for appointment of Advocate Commissioner necessary permission has been impliedly asked and therefore the Court below without appreciating the same dismissed the petition holding that the permission ought to have been obtained before the commencement of the examination of other witnesses on behalf of the parties seeking permission and as no permission was sought for, prior to the examination of DW1 the application is against under Order 18 Rule 3A of Code of Code of Civil Procedure and the reasonings given in the Court below are not correct.