Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1369/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1369 of 2008
In
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR REVIEW No. 2733 of 2008
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11712 of 2008
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 13565 of 2008
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1369 of 2008
=========================================================
AMIT
PATHAKJI - Appellant(s)
Versus
BHAVNA
AMIT PATHAKJI - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DIPEN C SHAH for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
Date
: 01/12/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH)
This
appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.9.2008 in Special
Civil Application No.11712 of 2008 and the order dated 23.10.2008
passed by the learned Single Judge in Misc.Civil Application No.2733
of 2008, for review of the said judgment. The judgment dated
19.9.2008 was rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil
Application, which was filed by the respondent wife complaining
about the protracted cross examination of the wife in the
maintenance application filed by her before the Civil Court at
Baroda in 1995. The learned Single Judge allowed the said
Special Civil Application and directed that –
‘Under
any circumstances cross-examination of the wife shall be concluded
latest by 30.9.2008. Respondent and his learned advocate shall
render full cooperation and ensure that above direction is
scrupulously complied with. Learned Judge is directed to ensure
that there is no laxity in compliance with the directions. If need
be learned Judge shall fix the proceedings for cross-examination of
the wife on day to day basis. The Counsel for the petitioner
assures the Court the petitioner will make herself available in the
cross examination on the date that trial Court may fix. ‘
The
present appellant thereafter filed the above numbered review
application, submitting that the cross examination was not yet
completed, as the appellant wanted to cross-examine the respondent
with reference to certain documents, which were earlier produced in
the divorce suit filed by the appellant husband against the
respondent wife. The learned Singe Judge has dismissed the
review application, after observing that nothing was stated on
record as to convince the Court, why cross examination should be
carried on endlessly without termination, that the learned trial
Judge ought to have controlled the advocate of the appellant and
ensured that only relevant questions were asked, so as to complete
the cross examination, within a reasonable time. The learned Single
Judge also noted that after the order dated 19.9.2008, the appellant
had four full days to cross examine the respondent and there has to
be strong materials from the record to demonstrate that even after
after four full days, why cross examination could not be completed.
The Court also noted that the appellant was offered short extension
to complete whatever cross examination the appellant may wish to
carry out further. But, the appellant submitted that such short time
would not be sufficient and insisted that time be extended till
31.12.2008.
The
learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the decision of
the Apex Court in the case of P.Ramachandra Rao V/s. State of
Karnataka
reported in AIR 2002 SC 1856
in support of the submission that the learned Single Judge could not
have imposed a time limit, for completing cross examination.
The
learned counsel for the appellant submits that several other
proceedings are also pending between the same parties, and that the
appellant, who is a retired employee, has been paying maintenance to
the respondent wife to the tune of Rs.4500/- per month, and
therefore, there is no prejudice to the wife. The other proceedings
are also not being completed.
In
the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that the
discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge was exercised in an
unreasonable manner. In any view of the matter, whatever grievances
the appellant has against the interlocutory orders of the trial
Court, the appellant may make a grievance against such interlocutory
orders at the time of challenging the final decree or final order,
in case such final decree or final order is adverse to the
appellant.
In
the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason
to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal
is, therefore, dismissed.
While
disposing of this appeal, we direct that if the appellant has
preferred any proceedings against respondent regarding any property
of the appellant, we leave it open to the appellant to request the
trial Court to hear and decide such suits/applications
expeditiously, if such proceedings are pending for more than 7
years.
The
Civil Application for stay also stands disposed of accordingly.
(MOHIT
S. SHAH, J.)
(HARSHA
DEVANI, J.)
(binoy)
Top