- (1.) This revisional application raises interpretation of Order 18 Rules 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) During the witness action, on 10th May, 2007, the witness on behalf of the defendant, namely, D.W.1 was examined and cross-examined and the same is duly recorded in the order dated10th May, 2007. Thereafter, on 8th June, 2010, when the said matter was taken up for argument, the learned Judge after going through the deposition found that the signature of the Presiding Officer was not appearing in the said deposition of D.W.1 and held that the evidentiary value of the said D.W.1 is questionable. The learned Judge, to avoid any future complications felt that another date may be fixed for further cross-examination of D.W.1 and, accordingly, adjourned the hearing of the argument till further crossexamination of the D.W.1 is over.
(3.) Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling of the Order dated 8th June, 2010 on the ground that under Order 18 Rules 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the signature of the Presiding Officer is not necessary and the same has been the view of the Hon ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court (Indian Overseas Bank v. A. Vimalan & Ors., 1987 AIR(Mad) 90). The petitioner filed its objection and submitted that there is no proper or specific ground for recalling of the said order inasmuch as the judgment of the Madras High Court is not binding on the City Civil Court and can only have some persuasive value. Moreover, the said judgment did not conclusively hold that that signature of the Presiding Officer/Judge was not required under Order 18 Rules 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.;