MOTTAIYAN ALIAS CHINNANDI Vs. RAMALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE civil revision petitions are filed against the order dated 20.2.2008 passed in I.A.Nos.243 and 580 of 2007, respectively, in O.S.No,544 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Attur.) Anim adverting upon the order dated dated 20.2.2008 passed in I.A.Nos.243 and 580 of 2007, respectively, in O.S.No,544 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Attur, these civil revision petitions are filed.

(2.) THE epitome and the long and short of the case involved in this revision would run thus: THE petitioner, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S.No,544 of 2004 based on easementary right. THE petitioner/plaintiff adduced evidence and closed his side. Whereupon, the respondents/defendants, on entering upon their defence, examined witnesses on their side. At the fag end of the case, the respondents/defendants filed I.A.Nos.243 and 580 of 2007 for the purpose of reception of documents and for recalling the witness, respectively. THE Court allowed both the applications. Being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by such allowing of applications, the petitioner/plaintiff filed these two revisions on various grounds.

(3.) WHEN all said and done, considering the pro ert contra, in this factual matrix, I am of the view that there is considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that when already Sengamalai-D.W.4-the then Village Administrative Officer was examined and he deposed with reference to the documents, absolutely there could be no necessity for the present incumbent, namely, Village Administrative Officer of Kallur, to depose of the new documents and that would lead to complications and flummox the issue also. It is a trite proposition of law that a Government Servant is expected to depose only with reference to public documents. Now the respondents/defendants' contention is that certain new documents have come to the knowledge of them and with reference to those documents they want to get clarified by eliciting out information from the Village Administrative Officer. In such a case, the said witness-D.W.4-Sengamalai is the proper person, who should be recalled and examined or cross-examined further, as the case may be, depending upon the circumstances of the case. The trial Court, without considering the implications, simply ordered the present Village Administrative Officer to be summoned, which, in my opinion warrants interference.