IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP (FC).No. 1234 of 2010(R)
1. B.SREEKUMARAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PADMAKUMARI, D/O.AMBUJAKSHY AMMA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :21/12/2010
O R D E R
R. BASANT &
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------
O.P.(FC) No.1234 of 2010-R
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
Basant,J.
The petitioner herein is the defendant in a suit filed by the
respondent, his wife, for partition and separate possession of her
half rights in an item of property. Acquisition is admittedly in
the joint names of the parties. The petitioner/husband has set
up a contention that the property belongs to him exclusively.
The Original Petition was filed as early as in 2003. The evidence
is over. The matter is at the stage of arguments. At this stage,
the petitioner filed a petition for production of documents. As
per Exts.P1 and P2, thirteen documents have been produced. It
is submitted that the documents have already been received.
The petitioner filed an application to recall the respondent, his
wife, for cross-examination for the sole purpose of confronting
O.P.(FC) No.1234 of 2010 -: 2 :-
her with the documents referred to in Exts.P1 and P2. By the
impugned order, the court below rejected the said prayer. The
petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order.
2. A perusal of the sequence of events in this case does not
at all reveal any bona fides on the part of the petitioner. But all
the same, we are satisfied that true to the adage that a stitch in
time save’s nine it would be advantageous to give the petitioner
an opportunity to cross-examine the respondent with specific
reference to the 13 documents referred to in Exts.P1 and P2.
Such luxury of a further opportunity can, of course, be granted
only subject to very strict conditions taking note of the fact that
the proceedings has been pending from 2003 and the matter
had at long last reached the stage of arguments.
3. In the nature of the order that we propose to pass, we
are satisfied that it is not necessary to wait for issue and return
of notice to the respondent. The learned counsel for the
petitioner asserts that the respondent is available in India and
will be readily available for cross-examination if opportunity is
granted.
4. In the result:
(a) This writ petition is allowed subject to conditions.
(b) The case before the Family Court stands posted to this
O.P.(FC) No.1234 of 2010 -: 3 :-
date, it is submitted. Before the next date of posting, the
petitioner shall deposit cost of Rs.7,500/- in which event an
opportunity for cross-examination of the respondent shall be
granted to the petitioner herein. If such deposit is made, the
respondent shall be made available for cross-examination for
one day and on that day the petitioner shall proceed with the
cross-examination of the respondent.
5. The Family Court shall report to this Court whether the
directions have been complied with. Call on 4/1/11.
Sd/-
R. BASANT
(Judge)
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
(Judge)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge