T RATHINAVEL Vs. P A T SUNDARAVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petitioner/plaintiff has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 22.12.2008 in I.A. No. 376 of 2008 in O.S. No. 63 of 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge - Fast Track Court No. 2, Madurai, in dismissing the application filed under Order 26 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the revision petitioner/plaintiff praying to examine him as a witness in the main suit at his residence by means of appointing a Commissioner.

(2.) The trial Court while passing orders in I.A. No. 376 of 2008 in O.S. No. 63 of 2007, has among other things, observed that the revision petitioner/plaintiff can walk with the help of others and moreover, the Court is situated within a kilometre from the residence of the revision petitioner and this has not been denied and resultantly, dismissed the application without costs.

(3.) In the memorandum of grounds, it is averred that the trial Court has misdirected itself with respect to the scope and ambit of Order 26 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with explanation and that the Court below has not appreciated that a Doctor may not be called as a witness and that the lower Court after having accepted the certificate Ex.P.1 ought to have relied on same to hold that the revision petitioner is sick and that the Court below has placed reliance on the counter of the respondent wrongly without appreciating the certificate Ex.P.1 and hence, the revision petitioner prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice.