Karnataka High Court
Mahadevi @ Megha W/O Shailendra Patil, vs Shailendra S/O Babagouda Patil, on 17 July, 2013
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2013
Before
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 64889/2012 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MAHADEVI @ MEGHA
W/O SHAILENDRA PATIL
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER
R/O C/O SHANKARGOUDA S CHOUGALA
NEAR COLLEGE CANTEEN
SAMAJMAL
SANKESHWAR
NIPPANI ROAD
SANKESHWAR
TQ: HUKKERI
DIST: BELGAUM ... PETITIONER
(By MS.SINDU POTADAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI JAGADISH
PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND :
SHAILENDRA
S/O BABAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 40 YRS, OCC: ASST.SUPERVISER
R/O C/O M.B.CHACHADI
'VIGHNARAJENDRA KRUPA'
BEHIND RUTURAJ APARTMENT
AYODHYA NAGAR,
BELGAUM ... RESPONDENT
(By Sri. Mruthyunjaya Tata Bangi, Advocate)
:2:
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.06.2012 PASSED
BY SR.CIVIL JUDGE, HUKKERI ON I.A.NO.7 IN
M.C.NO.3/2009 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I.A.NO.7 MARKED AT
ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Smt.Sindu, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri Mruthyunjaya Tata Bangi, learned Advocate appearing for respondent.
2. Though matter is listed for orders, by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
3. Parties are referred to as per their rank before trial Court.
4. Petitioner has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage with respondent solemnised on 26.02.2002. Respondent has appeared and filed his statement of objections and matter is being contested. On behalf of :3: petitioner, two witnesses were examined apart from petitioner himself getting examined. These two witnesses were present before trial Court on number of days and for one reason or the other, respondent has sought adjournment and as such, P.W.2 and P.W.3 came to be discharged i.e., on 02.02.2012 these two witnesses were discharged and matter was listed for evidence of respondent. On 12.04.2012 respondent was absent and therefore evidence of respondent was closed. At that stage, application was filed under Order 18 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking permission to cross examine P.Ws.2 and 3 by recalling them. Said application has been rejected by trial Court which is impugned in the present writ petition.
5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it is noticed that trial Court was fully justified in rejecting application filed by the respondent seeking :4: recall of P.Ws.2 & 3, inasmuch as respondent has been consistently evading and avoiding to proceed with the matter on one pretext or the other. However, to ensure that litigation comes to an end and on this technical ground, ultimately decree should not be set aside, this Court is of the considered view that to pre-empt any such situation arising, it would be necessary to permit the respondent to cross examine P.Ws.2 and 3. By looking at the conduct of respondent before the trial Court, it is necessary to put the respondent on terms to ensure that proceedings are not protracted and litigation before the trial Court would come to an end since matter is pending before trial Court since last six years.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, following order is passed:
(1) Writ petition is hereby allowed;
:5:
(2) I.A.No.7 filed by respondent for
recalling P.Ws.2 and 3 is hereby
allowed on payment of costs of
Rs.5000/- in all payable by respondent (wife) to petitioner (husband). (3) Payment of costs shall be condition precedent to proceed with the matter. (4) Since matter is pending before trial Court from 2007, following time schedule is fixed:
Sl. Particulars Date
No.
1 For appearance of P.Ws.2 and 3 25.07.2013
and their cross examination.
2 For further evidence of 29.07.2013
respondent if any.
3 Arguments on behalf of 06.08.2013
petitioner.
4 Arguments on behalf of 07.08.2013
respondent and a reply
arguments if any.
5 Clarifications if any. 08.08.2013
:6:
(5) Trial Court, within 15 days from the date of conclusion of arguments, shall proceed to pass judgment on merits and in accordance with law. (6) It is made clear that in the event of any of the parties were to seek further adjournment without any justifiable cause to the satisfaction of trial Court, trial Court would be at liberty to impose such further conditions including levy of costs which shall not be less than Rs.3,000/- per adjournment.
In view of the writ petition having disposed of, I.A.I/13 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE *sp