The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the Trial Court's order summoning an expert witness to explain the meaning of the word 'Taborrun', stating that oral contentions suffice and summoning is unnecessary for a single word.
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed; the order allowing the interim application is set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1311 of 2014
ORDER:
The first respondent filed O.S.No.1240 of 1982 against the second respondent and the petitioner herein for eviction from the suit schedule premises. The suit is at the stage of arguments. The first respondent filed I.A.No.151 of 2014 under Order XVI Rule 2(2) r/w Section 151 C.P.C with a prayer to summon a competent person from Osmania University or other Universities in Hyderabad, who have knowledge of Arabic language and to explain the meaning of the word “Taborrun”. The application was opposed by the petitioner. The trial Court allowed the same. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent.
It is rather unfortunate that the suit is pending in the trial Court itself for the past 32 years, whatever be the reasons. The purpose of filing of the I.A is to find out the meaning of the word “Taborrun”. Since the first respondent filed the suit, it is for him to explain the meaning according to his understanding or to supplement the same with some authorities. Summoning a witness just for the purpose of ascertaining the meaning of one word would only add the pendency of the suit. Even if an expert ascribes the meaning, that is not going to be final. The parties are always at liberty to substantiate their contentions as to the meaning of the word.
Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. It is for the respective parties to put forth their contentions about the meaning of the word “Taborrun”. There shall be no order as to costs.
The Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this revision petition shall stand disposed of.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
Date: 25.09.2014
va
3 issues framed by the court
Whether summoning an expert witness solely to ascertain the meaning of the word 'Taborrun' without more is justifiable within 32 years of suit pendency.
Whether the purpose of the interlocutory application is best served by oral contentions rather than expert testimony on a single word.
Whether the order allowing the application under Order XVI Rule 2(2) r/w Section 151 CPC should be set aside.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner herein
First Respondent
Second Respondent
L. Narasimha Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
