BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28/02/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.16 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 V.Baskaran ... Petitioner Vs 1.C.Rani 2.V.Prabaharan 3.M.Devi ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.49 of 2006 from the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, F.T.C.NO.III, Madurai and to transfer the same to any other Fast Track Court at Madurai. !For Petitioner ... Mr.P.T.S.Narendravasan ^For Respondents ... Mr.S.Parthasarathy for R.1 Mr.T.V.Sivakumar for R.2 :ORDER
This petition has been filed to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.49 of 2006
from the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, F.T.C.NO.III,
Madurai and to transfer the same to any other Fast Track Court at Madurai.
2. A re’sume’ of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal
of this petition would run thus:
The plaintiff who is the first respondent herein filed the suit for
partition. The trial almost reached the fag end. At that juncture, I.A was
filed by the second defendant, the petitioner herein, for examining the Village
Administrative Officer as D.W.7 and to get produced by him some revenue records.
The grievance of the petitioner is that without examining the Village
Administrative Officer, the Court simply proceeded to hear the arguments of the
plaintiff ignoring the defendants’ plea and to pass the judgment.
3. There are also other facts set out in the petition which are not
absolutely necessary for the order which is going to be passed hereunder.
4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would detail and delineate,
express and expatiate that the Village Administrative Officer was promptly
summoned by the Court and he was very much before the Court and the learned
Judge in order to simplify the procedure asked him as to what were the documents
he had brought. Thereupon, the Village Administrative Officer produced certain
documents. Thereupon, the learned Judge opined that the Village Administrative
Officer was not the competent witness to speak about such document. Thereafter
the matter was posted for arguments.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no
merit in this transfer petition and the suit is pending unnecessarily for a
pretty long time.
6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any justification
for transferring the case in O.S.No.49 of 2006 from the file of the Additional
District and Sessions Court, F.T.C.NO.III, Madurai, to any other competent
Court?.
7. What I could understand from the arguments of both sides, is that the
second defendant is very particular in getting the Village Administrative
Officer examined as DW.7 and get marked certain documents through him.
8. I recollect the catena of precedents to the effect that piecemeal
adjudication by the trial Court relating to admissibility of documents should be
discouraged for the reason that adjudication would pave the way for filing
revision petitions which would ultimately make the trial prolonged before the
Trial Court.
9. Here, the short point involved is as to whether the Village
Administrative Officer has to be examined and whether the documents brought by
him should be marked or not?
10. In my opinion, the trial Judge could have examined the Village
Administrative Officer as D.W.7 and marked the concerned documents subject to
objections made by the plaintiffs reserving the adjudication relating to that
matter to be made along with the main suit. Instead of doing so, a different
procedure, it appears, was followed by the trial Court which resulted in the
second defendant filing this transfer petition.
11. Hence, by way of resolving the issue and in the interest of shortening
the process, I would like to dismiss this petition with the direction that the
trial Judge shall summon the Village Administrative Officer to give evidence and
to produce the same old documents and as observed by me supra, thereupon let the
Village Administrative Officer be examined as D.W.7 and subject to objections by
the plaintiffs, the documents be marked and no piecemeal adjudication of such
objection need be made and ultimately while deciding the suit, the objections
shall also be considered on merits in accordance with law. The Trial Judge
shall dispose of the matter within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
rsb
TO
The Additional District &
Sessions Court, F.T.C.NO.III,
Madurai