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. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff, placing reliance on the grounds of appeal would develop his argument to the effect that the trial Court was not justified in passing a an cryptic order on the sole ground that it was the last opportunity given to the respondents/defendants to adduce evidence, when in fact, already the defendants, at their instance, examined the Village Administrative Officer, Kallur, on their side and marked documents also through him; absolutely there is no necessity for examining one other Village Administrative Officer, who presently occupies the post of Village Administrative Officer of Kallur Village.
4. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would submit that after examining Sengamalai, the then Village Administrative Officer of Kallur, the defendants came to know of certain Government documents, which would enlighten further the Court in understanding the real issue involved in this case and hence, the respondents/defendants wanted the present Village Administrative of Kallur, to produce such documents and to depose in respect of them.
5. 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.
6. Accordingly, the order of the lower Court allowing the prayer of the petitioner/plaintiff to summon the present Village Administrative Officer is set aside. However, it is directed that the trial Court shall recall D.W.4-Sengamalai, to appear before the Court. Whereupon, it is for the respondents/defendants either to conduct further chief examination or cross-examination, as the case may be, with the permission of the Court and elicit out information with reference to the new documents which have come to the knowledge of the defendants. I make it clear that regarding summoning of the documents from the Revenue Department, it is open for the Court to issue summons to the present Revenue Official to produce those documents. But, examination is concerned, only Sengamalai-D.W.4 should be examined further. Accordingly, both the civil revision petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
7. Taking into consideration the fact that the matter is of the year 2004, the trial Court shall do well to see that the matter is disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Msk