GNANARAJ Vs. BAKYALAKSHMI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Defendant is the Revision Petitioner. Application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner filed by the Revision Petitioner/Defendant in I.A. No. 1277/2005 in O.S. No. 1125/2000 was allowed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai by the order dated 19.1.2006. Though the Petition was allowed, the Petitioner has preferred this Revision on the ground that the Court has declined to examine the Commissioner as Court Witness but directed that the Commissioner be examined as witness on the Petitioner's side.

(2.) Suit O.S. No. 1125/2000 was filed by the Respondent Plaintiff for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant from proceeding with the construction in the 'C' Schedule Property. In the I.A. No. 1134/2000, Commissioner was appointed and the Commissioner has filed his Report. The Defendant has filed his objections to the Commissioners Report. The Revision Petitioner-Defendant has also filed I.A. No. 589/2003 to scrap the Advocate Commissioner's Report and appoint a new Advocate Commissioner. That Petition was dismissed by the order dated 25.04.2005. Against that order, the Revision Petitioner had earlier preferred C.R.P. No. 645/2005. That Revision was dismissed by the order dated 23.11.2005 holding that

(3.) The trial commenced-Witnesses are being examined. When the case was posted for Defendant's evidence, at that stage, the Revision Petitioner-Defendant had filed I.A. No. 1277/2005 to examine the Commissioner as witness. By the impugned Order, the Trial Court has allowed the Application, however directing that the Commissioner be appointed as the Defendant's evidence. The Trial Court has held that the Commissioner could toe examined on behalf of the Defendant's side and the Defendant could cross-examine the Commissioner under Sec. 154, Indian Evidence Act.