I.A. 3883 of 2014 in O.S. 74 of 2011 filed by the petitioner to have the Commission report marked was dismissed by the court below holding that the earlier application for the same purpose has been dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the earlier application was one to issue summons to the then Commissioner and inspite of best efforts the presence of the Commissioner could not be procured as she was not available since she was abroad. It was under those circumstances that the present I.A. had been filed. The court below without understanding the circumstances under which the petitioner is placed, dismissed the petition.
O.P.(C) 2673/2014. 2
2. There may be some substance in the complaint voiced by the petitioner. However, there are other methods available by which the petitioner can get the report marked. Probably without examining any witness, the court may not be able to mark the report and as to who is to be examined are matters to be decided by the court. The court cannot be simply asked to mark Ext. C1 report. To that extent the order may be correct. But that does not mean that the petitioner cannot resort to such steps as are necessary to have the Commission report marked.
3. It is made clear that the order impugned will not preclude the petitioner from taking such steps as are available to her in law to have the commission report marked as evidence in the case. If the petitioner takes any such steps, it shall be considered by the court below in accordance with law. The petitioner is given two weeks' time to take such steps as O.P.(C) 2673/2014. 3 are available to her. Till then the pronouncement of the judgment shall be kept in abeyance.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.