A R PERIYASAMY Vs. G KARUNAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioner/petitioner/defendant has filed the present revision as against the order dated 11.09.2007 in I.A.No.4 of 2007 in O.S.No.935 of 2004 passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.4 of 2007, has inter alia observed that 'the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit property and for consequential permanent injunction and this suit is to be determined on the basis of documents and that the revision petitioner /petitioner/defendant has not prayed for a relief of comparing the recorded voice found in the cassette with that of the evidence to be recorded, to be compared by an expert and has held that the application is not maintainable and further there are efficient persons who can speak with the voice of another and in this circumstance, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the voice found in the cassette is that of P.W.3 and therefore, dismissed the application.'

(3.) HE also relies on the decision in Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi V. Abdul Karim Ladsab Telgi and others 2005 CRI. L.J. 2868 wherein it is held as follows: