DANTHAM CHINNA CHENGACHARI Vs. DANTHAM PEDDA CHENGACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein was the plaintiff, who had instituted O. S. No. 63 of 1995 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur for partition of the suit schedule properties. The evidence on the side of the plaintiff was over. Then the first defendant examined himself. He wanted to examine a witness named Sri K. Nagalingappa on his side to prove that there was already a partition in the year 1961 between the parties to the suit. But the said witness could not attend the Court because of his illness. Therefore, the first defendant filed LA. No. 719/99 in this suit for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to record his statement on oath but the plaintiff-petitioner herein opposed the said petition. The learned Judge appeared to have allowed the said application filed by the first defendant. Against the said order, the plaintiff-petitioner herein filed the present revision.

(2.) HEARD both the Counsels.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this attempt is made by the first defendant to protract the proceedings. Moreover, the first defendant-1st respondent herein did not file any medical certificate to prove the averment that his witness Sri K. Nagalingappa is bedridden and not able to move and therefore it was submitted that the order of the learned Judge is erroneous.