LAKSHMI Vs. RATHINAMBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners/petitioners/plaintiffs have preferred this civil revision petition aggrieved against the order dated 12. 12. 2006 in I. A. No. 3044 of 2006 in O. S. No. 1020 of 1993 passed by the III Additional District Munsif, Puducherry in directing the petitioners/ plaintiffs in ordering that the revision petitioners/plaintiffs are not entitled to examine the Advocate Commissioner or let in any oral evidence etc.

(2.) THE revision petitioners/petitioners/plaintiffs have filed I. A. No. 3044 of 2006 in O. S. No. 1020 of 1993 on the file of III Additional District Munsif, Puducherry praying the Court to record the objections to the Commissioner's Report dated 23. 10. 1998. It appears that the learned counsel for respondents before the trial Court has made 'no Objection' endorsement for receiving the objections to the Commissioner's Report. However, the trial Court has passed the following conditional order in regard to the receipt of Commissioner's Report.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners/petitioners/ plaintiffs urges before this Court that when the trial Court has received the objections to the Commissioner's report, it has went to the extent of passing an order to the effect that the petitioners are not entitled to examine the Advocate Commissioner or let in any oral evidence in regard to the same and by passing such an order it has traversed beyond its jurisdiction.