MUHAMMED BASHEER Vs. SUNEERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order issued by the learned Family Court, Malappuram, rejecting his application preferred under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), seeking that certain documents be allowed to be produced in evidence; and explaining that the delay in producing the same was because he misplaced it, while his residence had been shifted earlier.

(2.) The learned Family Court, however, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, saying that if such documents are accepted, it would deny opportunity to the Original Petitioner, because her evidence had already been completed - the Original Petition having been filed by her seeking return of gold and impelling other financial claims.

(3.) The petitioner, through his learned counsel - Smt.Sai Pooja, argued that the afore opinion of the learned Family Court is in error; and that even if it is assumed that it is right in holding that new evidence cannot be allowed to be let in without proper opportunity being given to PW1, it should have gone ahead to recall the said witness, rather than to have shut out her client's legitimate endeavour to substantiate his contentions through germane inputs. Smt.Sai Pooja relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. and Another v. P.Rajkumar Rep. By His Power Agent Imam Oli (Civil Appeal No.3427 of 2020) in substantiation and argued that, except in very compelling or exceptional circumstances, the right of a litigant to lead evidence cannot be shut out.