MANEMMA T Vs. BOKKI SHIVANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order dated 8-8-2001 in I.A.No. 153 of 2001 in A.S.No. 10 of 2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

(2.) The revision petitioner - plaintiff filed a suit to recover money from the respondent - defendant. During the pendency of the suit, at the instance of the defendant two documents were sent to the Handwriting Expert for his opinion. The Expert opinion was received by the court. Thereafter the defendant requested the trial court by filing an appropriate petition to record the evidence of the Expert by appointing a commissioner. The trial court appointed an Advocate as commissioner to record the evidence of the said Expert. Thereafter the defendant did not pay the remuneration and expenses for the commissioner to go to Delhi and record the evidence of the Expert. Thereafter the petition for appointment of the commissioner was closed by the trial Court. Thereafter, on a consideration of evidence adduced by both the parties, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant filed an appeal before the Senior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy in A.S.No. 10 of 2000. In that appeal, he filed a petition under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C., requesting the court to appoint a commissioner "to record the evidence of the Expert on his report in the interest of justice". In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, the defendant pleaded that he was not provided any aid by the 'Legal Aid Authority' and therefore he did not examine the Expert though the trial court appointed the commissioner. He further pleaded that on the date of his application, he gathered some amount and is therefore able to meet the expenses of the commissioner. Making those allegations, he filed the petition concerned. The said petition was opposed by the plaintiff. The Appellate Court allowed the said application and appointed one Advocate as commissioner for the purpose of examining the Expert at Delhi. Aggrieved by that order, the plaintiff preferred the present revision petition.

(3.) In the petition the respondent herein did not seek the permission of the Appellate Court to permit him to adduce additional evidence. In the affidavit also he did not make such a request. He simply requested the trial court to appoint a commissioner to record the evidence of the Expert. This is a serious lacuna in the petition filed by the respondent before the Appellate Court. However, I will proceed on the presumption that in the said application the respondent-defendant sought the permission of the Appellate Court to adduce additional evidence before the Appellate Court.