Lakshmi, Kamakshi, Kala and Velu alias Velmurugan vs Rathinambal (Died) and Others

M. Venugopal, J.—The revision petitioners/petitioners/plaintiffs have preferred this civil revision petition aggrieved against the order dated 12.12.2006 in I.A. No. 3044 of 2006 in O.S. No. 1020 of 1993 passed by the III Additional District Munsif, Puducherry in directing the petitioners/plaintiffs in ordering that the revision petitioners/plaintiffs are not entitled to examine the Advocate Commissioner or let in any oral evidence etc.

The revision petitioners/petitioners/plaintiffs have filed I.A. No. 3044 of 2006 in O.S. No. 1020 of 1993 on the file of III Additional District Munsif, Puducherry praying the Court to record the objections to the Commissioner''s Report dated 23.10.1998. It appears that the learned Counsel for respondents before the trial Court has made ''No Objection'' endorsement for receiving the objections to the Commissioner''s Report. However, the trial Court has passed the following conditional order in regard to the receipt of Commissioner''s Report.

The petitioners are not entitled to re-open I.A. No. 4632 of 1993 for the purpose of enquiry.

The petitioners are not entitled to examine the Advocate Commissioner or let in any oral evidence with regard to the same.

Further, the trial Court has also stated that ''the objections are received and posted the matter for argument on 19.12.2006.''

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners/petitioners/plaintiffs urges before this Court that when the trial Court has received the objections to the Commissioner''s report, it has went to the extent of passing an order to the effect that the petitioners are not entitled to examine the Advocate Commissioner or let in any oral evidence in regard to the same and by passing such an order it has traversed beyond its jurisdiction.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that when the respondents Counsel has made ''No Objection'' endorsement for receiving the objections to the Commissioner''s report and the trial Court after receiving the objections to the Commissioner''s report should have left the matter at that stage and it need not have passed the order of saying that ''the petitioners are not entitled to examine the Advocate Commissioner or let in any oral evidence in regard to the same'' and therefore, the same is set aside in the interest of justice and in this view of the matter, the civil revision petition is allowed.

In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A. No. 3044 of 2006 to the effect that the petitioners are not entitled