The revision petitioner/Plaintiff has projected these two Civil Revision Petitions as against the order dated 29.05.2008 in I.A.Nos 438 and 439 of 2007 in O.S.No.122 of 2004 by the learned additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Court No.1, Tiruchirapallai dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner herein to reopen the case and to send Ex.B1 and Ex.B4 will for obtaining an expert's opinion, in regard to the thumb impression affixed by the mother of the plaintiff and the first defendant in the suit.
2. The trial Court while passing orders in I.A.Nos 438 and 439 of 2007 dated 29.05.2008 has entirely come to the conclusion that the suit has been filed in the year 2001 that examination of witnesses have been completed and when the main case has been posted for arguments, at that time a prayer has been made to send Ex.B1 and Ex.B4 wills for obtaining an Expert's opinion in regard to the thumb impression affixed by the mother of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, which is mainly to protract the conduct of the trial proceedings and a decision can be arrived in the main suit assessment based on oral and documentary evidence in a proper way and resultantly dismissed the application.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has relied upon the evidences of Dw2 and Dw3 in order to show that the thumb impression of Parvathiammal varies in Ex.B1 and Ex.B4 will, which are the subject matter in issue before the trial Court and that the trial Court has dismissed I.A.Nos 438 and 439 of 2007 dated 29.05.2008 without assigning just and proper reasons and on this score alone the order of the trial Court passed in I.A.Nos 438 and 439 of 2007 dated 29.05.2008 are liable to be set aside and resultantly Civil Revision Petition has to be allowed in the interest of justice.
4. Contending contra the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant submits that Witnessess DW.2 and DW.3 have admitted during the cross examination that both wills i.e. Ex.B1 and Ex.B4 have been executed in their presence and they are the witnesses s to the execution of documents and moreover the defendants 2 to 4 have not been arrayed as proper parties i I.A.Nos.438 and 439 of 2007, by the Civil revision petitioner.
5. Without going into the merits of the matter, on perusal of the order passed by the learned additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Court No.1, Tiruchirapallai in I.A.Nos.438 and 439 of 2007 dated 29.05.2008, this Court is of the prima facie view that the trial Court in the course of its orders in I.A.NOS.438 and 439 of 2007 dated 29.05.2008, have not adverted to the relevant aspect of the evidences adduced by the witnessess in the case and has simply stated that the applications have been filed in the view to drag on the proceedings of the main case and that a decision in the suit can be arrived at by means of assessing documentary evidence and resultantly dismissed the application and the said conclusion reached by the trial Court is not in conformity with the well laid down principles of law, since atleast, the trial Court in its orders in I.A.Nos 438 and 439 of 2007 dated 29.05.2008,must express its out line of reasonings to the conclusion arrived by it by adverting the materials on record and suffice it to point out that the order made by the trial Court in I.A.Nos438 and 439 of 2007 dated 29.05.2008 should have the appearance of justice and in the present case on hand, the outline of process of reasonings are conspicuously absent and resultantly this Court allows the Civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice .
6.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Order in I.A.NOs. 438 and 439 of 2007 dated 29.05.2008 are set aside. Further the trial Court is directed to restore I.A.Nos. 438 and 439 of 2007 dated 29.05.2008 to its file and pass appropriate orders after providing due opportunities to the parties and also bearing in mind the available material evidence of witnesses on record besides looking into the facts of the case in issue.
7.The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the said I.A.Nos. 438 and 439 of 2007 on merits uninfluenced with any of the observations made by this Court in this Revision. Liberty is given to the revision petitioner to implead necessary parties namely defendants 2 to 4 in the I.A.Nos.438 and 439 of 2007 and the trial Court after completing the formalities in the said interlocutory applications shall dispose of the same within a period of three weeks thereafter.
With these observations, these Civil Revision Petitions are Allowed. No costs.
arr To
1.Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Court No.1, Tiruchirapallai
2. The Registrar (Judicial) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.