PUJA KAKAR Vs. ARJUN KAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, the petitioner has assailed orders dated 20th March, 2009 and 23rd July, 2009 passed by the Guardianship Court.

(2.) A perusal of order dated 20th March, 2009 would show that the matter on that day case was listed for cross examination of witnesses of petitioner (respondent herein) Five witnesses viz. Shri Arjun Kakar, Shri B.M.Kakar, Ms. Uma Kakar, Shri Kapil Gupta and Shri Kunj Lal were present for their cross examination. Proxy Counsel for respondent/petitioner appeared and moved an application for adjournment on the ground that the car of main Counsel was stolen on 10th March, 2009 and in the car file of the present case was also lying due to which Counsel for respondent/petitioner required time to reconstruct the file and to prepare the cross examination. The application was opposed by the Counsel for the plaintiff stating that it was a false plea. He showed that throughout the conduct of the petitioner had been to somehow prolong the proceedings and the petitioner had deliberately not been cross examining the witnesses of the plaintiff since she was having custody of child in question and she wanted to prolong the proceedings. On various earlier occasions the petitioner had been burdened with costs but the same had no affect on the petitioner and the cross examination should be closed.

(3.) The learned trial Court went through the record and found that on framing of issues by the Court, the parties were granted two opportunities each to conclude the evidence. The petitioner/respondent filed affidavits of three witnesses on 20th October, 2008 and the matter was adjourned for cross examination of witnesses to 19th December, 2008. On 19th December, 2008, adjournment was sought on behalf of petitioner herein on the ground that copies of affidavits of PWs got misplaced and the Counsel could not prepare the cross examination. The Court therefore adjourned the case for 20th March, 2009 for cross examination of witnesses subject to cost of Rs.2,000/- and granted a last opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses. On 20th March, 2009 when five witnesses were present in the Court, the application was made for adjournment on the ground of loss of file due to theft of car. The trial Court noted that the file was allegedly stolen on 10th March, 2009, but the advocate whose car was stolen with file had not signed the application neither he furnished the affidavit and there was no reason to believe that the file of the case, which was fixed before the Court on 20th March, 2009 was lying in the car on 10th March 2009. The last date of the case was 19th December, 2008 and next date was 20th March, 2009. No reason was furnished by the Counsel as to why the file was lying in the car when the date of theft of car was neither the last date nor the next date. It was found by the Court that there was force in the arguments of the plaintiff that the Counsel for petitioner had sufficient time to reconstruct the file. There were about 10 days available to the Counsel for reconstruction of the file even if it had been stolen. The court found ground for adjournment frivolous and dismissed the application for adjournment and closed the cross examination of the witnesses and fixed the case for respondent's (petitioner herein) evidence.