KANIKA DARIRA Vs. MANISH DARIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Howsoever obstructive may be the attitude of a lawyer, a Judge, that too, presiding over the Family Court has to maintain calm and composure. A lawyer may be taken to task for the obstructive attitude and if warranted personal costs on the lawyer could also be imposed. But judicial proceedings cannot travel on a track where miscarriage of justice ensues.

(2.) Having perused the impugned order and the record of the learned Judge, Family Court, we express our displeasure at the manner in which the learned counsels for the appellant and the appellant have conducted the proceedings before the learned Judge, Family Court. The proceedings would reveal every endeavour made to somehow or the other prolong the agony of the parties. But, we find that a fundamental error has been committed by the learned Judge, Family Court.

(3.) Mercifully for us we need not note the facts in detail since the learned counsel for the respondent concedes that in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the opinion Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal, 1955 AIR(SC) 425 the learned Judge, Family Court ought to have accorded the appellant an opportunity to lead evidence.