Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4892 (MAD)

P. Ramamoorthy v. Duraisamy

2011-12-21

R.SUDHAKAR

body2011
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order and decreetal order dated 28.11.2011 passed in I.A.No.106 of 2011 in A.S.No.8 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal. 2. The first Respondent herein has filed the application I.A.No.106 of 2011 to cross-examine P.Ws.1 and 2 pursuant to the order of remand passed by this Court in S.A.No.994 of 2009 dated 12.4.2011 and the order of this Court reads as follows:- “16. On receipt of expert opinion, the first appellate court shall give due opportunity to both sides to file objections, if any, and it shall also permit the plaintiff and D2 to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence in the way known to law. The first appellate court shall decide the matter and pass appropriate judgment after hearing both sides, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Both parties shall appear before the first appellate court on 06.06.2011. It is open for both sides to argue in entirety the case, after adducing additional evidence, without any restriction whatsoever.” The said I.A.No.106 of 2011 was allowed. Challenging that order, this civil revision petition is filed. 3. The plea of the revision petitioner is that the remand is specifically for the purpose of getting expert opinion from the forensic expert and not otherwise. On that premise, the revision petition is filed challenging the order of the court below. 4. I am unable to accept the plea of the revision petitioner in view of the specific order passed in para 16 of the judgment dated 12.4.2011 in S.A.No.994 of 2009. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the decision in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar - vs. - Sharadhcandra Prabhakar Gogate reported in (2009)4 Supreme Court Cases 410, para 25 to canvass the plea to reopen the evidence as not required. The said decision may not apply to the facts of the present case for the reasons stated in para 16 of the judgment passed in S.A.No.994 of 2009 dated 12.4.2011. This Court has given the right to adduce both the oral and documentary evidence in the way known to law and that was accepted by both parties. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court will not apply to the facts of the present case. 6. This Court has given the right to adduce both the oral and documentary evidence in the way known to law and that was accepted by both parties. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court will not apply to the facts of the present case. 6. In view of the above, finding no merits, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.