MARY SELVAM Vs. SANTHOSHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions are directed against the orders of dismissal passed in two applications filed in O. S No. 157 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif, Krishnagiri, for reopening the case and for recalling p. W. 4 and examining him.

(2.) MR. T. Srinivasa Raghavan, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, would submit that earlier an application was filed by the revision petitioner for examining the commissioner appointed by court as p. W. 4 and that was allowed and since at that time the commissioner was not available for tendering evidence, the revision petitioner could not produce him as a witness and so later on when the commissioner was available for tendering evidence, revision petitioner wanted to examine him to tender further evidence, which would throw light on the case, and so the revision petitioner filed petition for reopening the case and recalling him as a witness but the court below has rejected her claim. The learned counsel would further submit that when the court below itself had allowed the revision petitioner to examine him as a witness and only because of the non -availability of the Commissioner, the petitioner could not examine him and as the petitions was constrained to file another application for recalling him and examining him at a later stage and the lower court is not correct in dismissing the petition, when the very same court below had earlier permitted the petitioner to recalling him and examining him. Per contra, Miss V. Sumathi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, would submit that no revision will lie on the orders of the court below dismissing the petitioner for recalling a witness.

(3.) IN view of the above, I am clear that the orders passed by the court below cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside and are set aside and both C. R. P. Nos. 588 and 589 of 1993 are allowed. Consequently, both she applications filed in the trial court in G. Nos. 448 and 449 in o. S. No. 157 of 1987 on the file of District Munsif, Krishnagiri shall stand allowed. Both the learned counsels would. submit that the trial of the suit may be directed to be expedited. The court below is directed to expediate the suit and dispose of it as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. .