Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Mohd. Aslam Shah vs Mst. Nilofar And Ors. on 12 March, 1982
Equivalent citations: AIR1983J&K63, AIR 1983 JAMMU AND KASHMIR 63(1)
JUDGMENT G.M. Mir, J.
1. In a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, the statements of the parties had to be recorded before the proceedings could start as the matter in fact related to the conjugal relationship of the parties. The trial court directed that the parties should appear before it for getting their statements recorded. An application was moved by the non-applicant herein i. e. Mst. Nilofar to the effect that she being pardhanishin lady, she be examined on commission. This was done under Section 132 C.P.C. The same was objected to by the other side as it was stated by the non-applicants herein before the trial court that Mst. Nilofar was a student and was doing law in the University and as such, she was not a pardhanishin lady and the protection Under Section 132 C.P.C. could not be availed of by her. The trial court of the City Munsiff Srinagar, by virtue of Us order Dt. 13-11-1981 allowed the application of Mst. Nilofar and permitted her to be examined on commission. Even a Commissioner was named and his fees also were fixed.
2. Against this order, the present revision has been filed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The order impugned is an interlocutory order passed in the suit. It is of the type against which no revision could be entertained as has been held in various judgments of this court. Moreover, from a perusal of Section 132 C.P.C. it is apparent that the order permitting or not permitting the examination on commission of a witness or a party was within the discretion of the court. The trial court could not compel any woman who claims to be a pardhanishin for appearing in the court and get her statement recorded. In this case, it appears that though the non-applicant herein is a student and is reading in the University, yet she claims that she is pardhanishin, in the sense that she has never appeared in a court or before any officer of the Govt. so far, and the same has been considered by the trial court and it exercised its discretion in refusing to compel her to appear in the court and get her statement recorded. I am of the view that the trial court was right in exercising the discsetion the way it has done.
5. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed and the parties are directed to appear in the trial court on 23-3-82 for further orders. It is hoped that the case shall be speedily disposed of by the trial court.