ASHWINI Vs. AVINASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although the matter is listed for hearing on I.A., I have taken it up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Advocates. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the order dated 8-11-2013 (Annexure-E) passed by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in G and WC. No. 212 of 2011 insofar as it pertains to I.A. Nos. 10 and 11. I.A. No. 10 is for recalling the respondent for further examination-in-chief by reopening the case. I.A. No. 11 is for summoning the audio CD. from the Station House Officer, Ramamurthynagar Police Station, Bangalore, seized in PF No. 106 of 2009 in Cr. No. 380 of 2009. The said audio CD. contains the alleged conversation between the petitioner and one Lohit Manohar.

(2.) Sri Showri, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the two I.As. are filed at the belated stage. They came to be filed when the matter was set down for arguments. They were filed only to fill the lacunae in the version of the respondent. He submits that the Family Court is not justified in allowing I.A. No. 10 in exercise of its power conferred by Order 18, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. He submits that the said provisions can be invoked only for the limited purpose of seeking clarification. But when there is no ambiguity, the question of Family Court exercising the power under Order 18, Rule 17 of CPC would not arise. In support of his submissions, he relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of M/s. Bagai Construction through its Proprietor Lalit Bagai v M/s. Gupta Building Material Store, 2013 AIR(SC) 1849.

(3.) Sri Showri submits that the documents now belatedly sought to be produced do not figure in the list of documents filed by the respondent. He submits that the documents in question are not new documents. Only because the petitioner has denied the existence of the documents, the case cannot be reopened at the instance of the respondent.