K. Srinivasan vs Veerapathiran

C.S. Karnan, J.—This petition has been filed by the Defendant to set aside the order in I.A. No. 501 of 2010 in O.S. No. 281 of 2004, dated 07.12.2010, passed by learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

The Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The Respondent/Plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S. No. 281 of 2004 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai against the revision Petitioner/Defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,14,666/-with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on Rs. 2,00,000/-from the date of plaint till date for realisation, on promissory note and other relief. The said money suit was resisted by the revision Petitioner/Defendant after filing a written statement. Thereafter, interlocutory application in I.A. No. 701 of 2005 was filed for sending the document Ex.A1 for expert opinion. This was allowed and an expert opinion was also received. But, the expert was not examined. Hence, the revision Petitioner/Defendant has filed an interlocutory application for examining the expert. The said application was resisted by the Respondent/Plaintiff after filing a counter statement. The learned Judge, after hearing the arguments of the learned Counsels on both sides and after perusing the averments made on both sides, dismissed the said application.

Aggrieved by the dismissed of the interlocutory application in I.A. No. 501 of 2010 in O.S. No. 281 of 2004 dated 07.12.2010, the above revision petition was filed by the Defendant.

The learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner argued that though the expert opinion has been received by the trial court, the concerned expert has not been examined to prove the veracity of the opinion. As such, the expert has to be examined. Otherwise, the opinion cannot be taken as conclusive proof.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff argued that the expert opinion has been given by a competent person, as per order of the learned trial court Judge. As per the findings of the report, the learned Judge can decide the issue even without examining the expert. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner argued that if the concerned expert was not examined, lacuna will arise in the adjudication.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned Counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the trial court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the expert opinion can be considered only after due examination of the expert. Therefore, this Court directs the learned Judge to dispose of the main suit in O.S. No. 281 of 2004 within a period of four weeks from the date of this order after examining the expert, who has given the report. Accordingly ordered.

In the result, the above civil revision petition in C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 1458 of 2011 is disposed of with the above observations. Consequently, the order and decretal order passed in I.A. No. 501 of 2010 in O.S. No. 281 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, is set aside. Connected M.P. is closed. There is no order as to costs.