VIJAYAMMA Vs. P. PALANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by the accused challenging the dismissal of the petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. When the matter came up for hearing on 21.06.2013, the arguments of the petitioner was heard and for respondent's arguments, it was adjourned to 24.06.2013. Without disclosing that the matter is part-heard, adjournment was sought at the instance of the respondent on the morning of 24.06.2013 and it was also granted. On the very same day, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the Court that the matter is part-heard and there is an urgency to dispose of the case. Therefore, again the matter was ordered to be listed on the next day, i.e., on 25.06.2013. From that day onwards, there was no representation for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner represented before the Court that he took personal care to inform the learned counsel for the respondent and despite information, there is no response. On this representation, the matter was further proceeded with.

(2.) Originally the petition was filed by the accused under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the documents under Exs.P1 and P2 for the expert opinion. The trial Court has dismissed the petition on the ground that seeking similar relief already two petitions were filed and both the petitions were allowed. Therefore, the third petition for the similar relief is not maintainable. The order of the trial Court reads as follows:

(3.) But, the perusal of the order would go to show that the two petitions on the earlier occasions has been filed seeking to get the opinion on the age of the ink and the forensic experts have given reply stating that the age of the ink could not be identified.