K.N. PETHAPERUMAL MAISTRY Vs. G. PERUMAL MAISTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is sufficient to deal with this revision proceeding within a restricted compass. The first ground on which the revision proceeding is pressed, viz., that the application in the Revenue Court for the eviction of the cultivating tenant (revision petitioner) was first heard by one officer, then by his successor, again subsequently by the first officer, so that there has been a change in the personnel of the officer presiding over the Revenue Court, which disentitles either officer to make a final order, is without substance. The argument may conceivably have some force, if the Madras Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act (1955) and the Rules framed thereunder in 1955, were wholly without a provision for a contingency of this character. On the contrary, Rule 8(i) of the Rules framed under the Act by G.O. No. 66c,, Revenue, dated 13th February, 1956, specifically declared that:

(2.) THAT attracts the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and the relevant Orders, and, we have specific provision in Older 18, Rule 15(1), Civil Procedure Code, for the successor of a Judge who is prevented by death, transfer or other cause from conducting the trial of a suit, not merely to validly proceed with the action, but also to deal with the evidence recorded by the predecessor. Since this rule applies, there has been no irregularity in the trial of the eviction petition, which would justify interference in revision.