B SREEKUMARAN NAIR Vs. PADMAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is the defendant in a suit filed by the respondent, his wife, for partition and separate possession of her half rights in an item of property. Acquisition is admittedly in the joint names of the parties. THE petitioner/husband has set up a contention that the property belongs to him exclusively. THE Original Petition was filed as early as in 2003. THE evidence is over. THE matter is at the stage of arguments. At this stage, the petitioner filed a petition for production of documents. As per Exts.P1 and P2, thirteen documents have been produced. It is submitted that the documents have already been received. THE petitioner filed an application to recall the respondent, his wife, for cross-examination for the sole purpose of confronting her with the documents referred to in Exts.P1 and P2. By the impugned order, the court below rejected the said prayer. THE petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order.

(2.) A perusal of the sequence of events in this case does not at all reveal any bona fides on the part of the petitioner. But all the same, we are satisfied that true to the adage that a stitch in time save's nine it would be advantageous to give the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine the respondent with specific reference to the 13 documents referred to in Exts.P1 and P2. Such luxury of a further opportunity can, of course, be granted only subject to very strict conditions taking note of the fact that the proceedings has been pending from 2003 and the matter had at long last reached the stage of arguments.

(3.) THE Family Court shall report to this Court whether the directions have been complied with. Call on 4/1/11.