The High Court dismissed the petitioner's application under Article 227 seeking quashing of a Family Court order rejecting an application to exhibit evidence. The Court held that the Family Court had given sufficient opportunity to produce evidence, which the petitioner failed to do by not specifying the documents sought.
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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5822 of 2013 (2) dt.19-06-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5822 of 2013
====================================================== Santosh Kumar son of Late Prakash Lal, resident of village-Pachrukhi, P.S. Akbarpur, District-Nawada.
.... .... Petitioner Versus Shalini Devi wife of Santosh Kumar, daughter of Raso Lal, resident of village-Pachrukhi, P.S.-Akbarpur, District-Nawada. .... .... Respondent ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 19-06-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 11.02.2013
passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nawada, in Matrimonial Case No. 171/2007 whereby he has dismissed the petition dated 10.12.2012 filed by the petitioner whereby he had sought for bringing on record certain documents as evidence and for that purpose, such documents were required to be exhibited.
It seems, from the contents of the impugned order, that the matrimonial case was instituted at the instance of this petitioner in the year 2007. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to produce his evidence. The petitioner was subsequently directed to produce evidence and he was given sufficient opportunity as far as it was possible. In that view of the matter, the evidence was closed.
It appears from the impugned order that the petitioner in his
Patna High Court CWJC No.5822 of 2013 (2) dt.19-06-2013
application for bringing the documents as exhibits did not mention the documents which he wanted to be exhibited. In such view of the matter, learned Court below dismissed the petitioner’s application vide impugned order dated 11.02.2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the ends of justice, the petitioner should have been given one chance to bring on record the material evidence for proper adjudication of the case.
However, I am of the view, on the basis of contents of the impugned order, that petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to bring on record the evidence on which he wanted to rely upon which he failed to do. Thereafter, the evidence was closed by the Court below. It is not the case of the petitioner that the order passed is beyond jurisdiction or that the Court below has failed to exercise its jurisdiction. No illegality could be pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of Inida.
In view of the above, I find no merit in the application and the application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)
Saif/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court acted illegally in dismissing the application for bringing documents on record after evidence had been closed due to petitioner's failure to specify them.
Whether this Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the absence of jurisdictional error or failure to exercise jurisdiction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Santosh Kumar
Shalini Devi
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
