ORDER
1. This revisional application has been directed against the Order No. 64 dated 12-11-1992, passed by the Id. Munsif, Ram-purhat, in Title Suit No. 260 of 1992 disposing of five applications by the order under challenge.
2. To decide the controversy, a brief and important synopsis of the factual exposure of the case is an inevitability which paves the way for appreciation. It is needless to repeat, that the petitioner revisionist filed five applications, although the relief sought for was not identical in all the applications. Of the five applications, the petitioner-revisionist has assailed the order passed in connection with three petitions challenging the refusal to correct the figure of Exhibits, examination of Dr. Swapan Kr Nag and admission of almanac into evidence. In the perspective of the aforesaid claim made by the petitioner-revisionist, I deal with the first controversy about the marking of the exhibits, the prayer of the petitioner-revisionist which, however, stood rejected by the Id. court below. Approaching to the claim of the petitioner-revisionist, after hearing the Id. Counsel for the respective parties, the prayer at the threshold prima facie proves to be innocuous. The petitioner-revisionist in his modest claim has sought for correction of the figures or numbers in the Exhibits but never pressed into service the correction of the contents of those exhibits. The mere correction of the
number of exhibits without anything more cannot foster any suspicion in the minds of the opposite parties that their rights have been snapped of. The contents of those exhibits do not stand for a moment to be trammelled by the petitioner-revisionist.
3. On hearing both the Counsel, I am of the view that the prayer for correction of the numbers in the Exhibits never verges on illegality. In the context of the fact, an obligation is laid on the Court to admit the documents into evidence in accordance with law with correct markings. Therefore, the order passed by the Id. court below refusing to correct the number of Exhibits for the time spent out is not acceptable nor does it admit of any consideration. The jurisdiction thus exercised suffers from illegality which is curable by the court of revision as the orders complained of it allowed to remain alive will inflict irreparable injury on the petitioner-revisionist. Therefore, the prayer for correction of the Exhibits of the documents is upheld. But, I make it clear that the Id. trial court on the basis of the existing materials has not been given the direction to make correction of any other matters erupting from the documents excepting the correction of the figures. I have restrained myself from passing any remark about the contents of the documents. It is for the Id. court below to decide.
4. Returning to examine the claim for examination of Dr. Swapan Kr Nag, the reason assigned by the Id. court below refusing the prayer for examination is wholly unwarranted. The grounds for rejection as indicated are really a disturbing feature for which the court of revision cannot take the role of a silent spectator as the order complained of squarely and fairly verges on the provisions of Section 115 of the C.P.C. The Id. court below dismissed the claim on two fold grounds.
5. The first ground which stares on my face is that he did not examine any of the parties in the suit while the other ground is that the medical jurisprudence would be sufficient to disclose the opinion as sought for by the petitioner-revisionist. But, it is trite saying for the judicial decisions galore that books on
medical jurisprudence cannot be relied upon unless the books are put to expert. Besides such books are not per se evidence.
6. The Id. Counsel for the O.P., Mr. Rabindranath Bag has disputed the claim of the Id. Counsel for the petitioner-revbisionist, as the petitioner-revisionist in repelling the claim for such examination draws inspiration from the order complained of. But, I do not see that such a view could be taken by the Court. I am not oblivious of the position of law that the examination of an expert may lead, in many cases, “a battle of experts, with the Judge or jury understandably dispose to believe that each expert might have testified with equal positiveness for the other side had been called by it. In these state of affairs, the Court it no doubt to take the role of a super expert an expert of all experts. But our Apex Court white dealing about the genuineness of the admitted signature with the forged signatures by a celebrated judgment warned the Courts to refrain from taking the role of experts without having the opinion from the expert. In apprehension of such mockery the aid from neutral expert had been widely recommended State (Del Admin) v. Paliram, .
7. For the foregoing reasons, the second prayer for examination of a Gynaecologist cannot be whittled down for the reasons assigned by the Id. court below. The prayer for examination of Gynaecologist of eminence by substituting the prayer for examination of Dr. Swapan Kr Nag for collection of medical opinion is allowed thus.
8. The third prayer as refused by the Id. court below dwell on admission of an almanac (Gupta Press). I failed to understand how such prayer could be refused by the Id. court below in the background of fulfilment of conditions as envisioned relating to admission of documents as secondary evidence. Even the Court is not denuded of power to lay its hand on a document relevant for just decision of the case which is not per se illegal. The Id. Counsel for the O.P. has disputed such prayer of the revisionist. But, however, he could not satisfy me that admission of an almanac (Gupta Press — into evidence in accordance with law will cloud the claim of the O.P.
9. The order complained of refusing to admit into evidence is contrary to the provision of law curable in exercise of revisional power.
10. Thus, the three prayers contained in the revisional application are allowed on the above observations.
11. The revisional application, therefore, succeeds but considering the circumstances I award no costs.
12. Let xerox copies of this order be given to the learned advocates for the parties on the usual undertaking.
13. Application allowed.
