Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Vikash Jaiswal vs Smt. Nisha Jaiswal on 24 January, 2017
Author: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
Bench: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
1
(08)
24.01.2017
(p.j.)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
CO 3515 of 2016
Sri Vikash Jaiswal
-versus-
Smt. Nisha Jaiswal
Mr. Farhan Gaffar
...for the petitioner
This revisional application is directed against the order dated September 5, 2016 passed by
the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Calcutta in Matrimonial Suit No. 4 of 2014. By the
impugned order, the learned Court below rejected the prayer of the petitioner husband for
adjournment of hearing of the suit and closed the cross-examination of the P.W.- 1, the wife.
From the records it appears that by order dated February 23, 2016 passed in the revisional
application, being CO 412 of 2016, filed by the opposite party wife a learned Single Judge of this
Court directed the learned Court below to dispose of the matrimonial suit expeditiously without
granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. As directed by the said order dated
February 23, 2016 the learned Court below took steps for early disposal of the matrimonial suit.
The learned Court below passed a specific direction to the petitioner, the respondent in the
matrimonial suit, to appear before him on August 1, 2016 for completion of cross-examination of the P.W.-1 the wife, but the petitioner did not appear before the learned Court below on August 1, 2 2016. However, for the ends of justice the hearing of the matrimonial suit was adjourned and the next date was fixed on September 5, 2016. By the order dated August 1, 2016 the petitioner, as the respondent in the matrimonial suit, was directed to appear in time before the Court on August 1, 2016, failing which the cross-examination of the P.W.-1 will be deemed to have been closed without giving any further opportunity. In spite of said direction, when the suit was taken up for hearing by the learned Court below on September 5, 2016, the petitioner once again prayed for adjournment on the ground that he needs time to appoint a new lawyer. Such prayer on behalf of the petitioner was opposed by the opposite party wife and the learned Court below passed the impugned order closing the evidence of P.W.-1 wife.
Having considered the undisputed facts of the case as discussed above, I do not find that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below suffers from any infirmity. From the conduct of the petitioner it is apparent that he is interested to delay the conclusion of the trial of the suit and to circumvent the direction passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the said order dated February 23, 2016. Accordingly, the revisional application being CO 3515 of 2016 stands rejected. Interim order passed in this revisional application stands vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
The learned Registrar (Administration) is requested to communicate this order to the learned Court below.
(Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.)