TREASURER CHENNAI DEVANGAR MAHAJANA SABHAI Vs. M RAJAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward with this revision as against the order of the Court below rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Order 26, Rule 9, CPC, wherein the petitioner sought for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to verify as to the whereabouts of the first respondent of a particular period and also as to whether the first respondent's name was found in the General Assembly Electoral Roll or the Family Ration Card or the Bank Passbook.

(2.) I am afraid that Order 26, Rule 9, CPC, cannot be invoked for ascertaining such facts, which can always be ascertained by way of letting in evidence, by which process alone the petitioner will have to establish such factors.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1998 LW 112 (Ponnusamy Pandaram v. The Salem Vaiyappamalai Jangamar Sangam), with particular reference to paragraph 5, wherein the law has been well stated as under. "... The object of local investigation under O.26, R.9 of the Code cannot be belittled. Its object is to collect evidence at the instance of the party who relies on the same and which evidence cannot be taken in court but could be taken only from its peculiar nature, on the spot. This evidence will elucidate a point which may otherwise be left in doubt or ambiguity on record. ... "