CRP/2841/2022 of GANTA RAJ KUMAR Vs GANTA JUYONA on 30 December 2022

COMMON ORDER:

Respondent in O.P. filed the above civil revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. CRP No.2841 of 2022 is filed against order, dated 23.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.230 of 2022 in D.O.P.No.567 of 2016 on the file of learned III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram.

3. CRP No.2838 of 2022 is filed against order, dated 23.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.229 of 2022 in D.O.P.No.567 of 2016 on the file of learned III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram.

4. Wife filed O.P.No.567 of 2016 under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act to dissolve marriage, solemnized with the revision petitioner on 21.08.2002.

5. Husband filed counter and opposed the petition.

6. When the matter is coming for arguments, husband filed I.A.Nos.229 and 230 of 2022 under Section 151 CPC to set aside the order of eschewing, dated 03.11.2022 and to reopen the respondent side evidence, respectively.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.229 of 2022, it was contended inter alia that the evidence of RW3 was eschewed as she was not present on the date of adjournment i.e. on 03.11.2022 and posted the matter to 10.11.2022, for arguments. RW3 was not present on the said date since RW3 suffered from Dengue fever. RW3 is very important witness and there are no willful laches on the part of RW3 in not appearing before the Court on last adjournment.

8. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.230 of 2022, it is contended that he wants to adduce further evidence by examining two witnesses as well as his son and minor daughter as witnesses.

9. Wife filed counter opposing the affidavits. It was stated that on 25.08.2022 as husband did not let in further evidence and as there was no representation on his behalf, evidence was closed and the matter was posted to 08.09.2022. At that juncture, husband filed I.A.No.608 of 2022 to reopen the case with his evidence. Wife reported no counter in the said I.A. Hence, I.A.No.608 of 2022 was allowed. However, RW3 was not subjected to cross-examination and hence, evidence of RW3 was eschewed. It is contended that except making vague statement that RW3 was suffering with dengue fever no proof is filed in support of the same and these petitions are filed only to drag on the proceedings. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petitions.

10. Trial Court, by separate orders, dated 23.11.2022 dismissed both the petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the above revisions are filed.

11. Heard Ms. Amolia G., learned counsel representing Sri G. Ronald Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that RW3 suffered from Dengue fever and hence, the witness could not appear before the Court on 03.11.2022. She would submit that failure on the part of RW3 to appear on the date of hearing is neither willful nor wanton. Learned counsel would further submit that RW3 is one of the important witnesses, however, the Court below without considering the same, dismissed the applications and thus, prayed to set aside the orders impugned.

13. A perusal of the proceedings would indicate that OP was filed by the wife and initially evidence was closed on 25.08.2022. After closure of evidence, the matter was posted to 08.09.2022 for arguments. At that point of time, husband filed I.A.No.608 of 2022 to reopen the case for cross-examination of RW3. Wife reported no counter, as such said I.A. was allowed. However, RW3 did not appear before the Court on the date fixed. In view of the same, the evidence of RW3 was eschewed on 03.11.2022 and the matter was posted to 10.11.2022 for arguments.

14. In the affidavits filed in support of the petition, it is contended that RW3 was suffering with Dengue fever and hence, could not appear before the Court. However, no material is placed before the Court regarding RW3 suffering with dengue fever.

15. Apart from that husband filed I.A.No.230 of 2022 to receive chief affidavit of two more witnesses. Trial Court after considering the same came to the conclusion that the petitions are filed only to procrastinate the proceedings and dismissed both the petitions. In fact, as can be seen from the record, the list of witnesses was not disclosed at the time of filing of counter or later. Petitioner keeps on filing one after another. The finding of the court that petitioner is procrastinating the proceedings, as can be seen from the material, is well founded.

16. This court does not find any illegality in the orders impugned and hence, these revisions are liable to be dismissed.

17. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

__________________________

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J

Date : 30.12.2022 ikn

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2841 AND 2838 OF 2022

Date: 30.12.2022

ikn