VARGHESE Vs. SUNU ANNIE THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the 2nd petitioner in the lower court in IA No. 272/2014 in OP No. 929/2011 on the file of Family Court, Thiruvalla challenging the order dismissing the application for re -open the evidence invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IT is alleged in the petition that the petitioner herein is the 2nd petitioner and the respondent is the respondent in I.A. No. 272/2014 in OP 929/2011 on the file of Family Court, Thiruvalla. That OP was filed by the respondent herein for return of money and value of gold ornaments. The petitioner is the father -in -law of the petitioner in the lower court and he is the power of attorney holder of the son who is working abroad. The wife of the petitioner is also a party to the OP. The allegation in the petition filed by the respondent herein was that at the time of marriage certain gold ornaments and money were given and though marriage was dissolved, those things were not returned. So she filed the petition for return of those gold ornaments and money. The petitioner was examined in that case and it was posted for the evidence of the respondent and since no evidence was adduced it was closed. The evidence was closed and posted for hearing. At that time the petitioner herein filed an application for re -open the evidence and also produced a witness list showing the present husband of the petitioner in the original proceedings and the Manager, Federal Bank, Vadasserikara and the application was allowed. The 1st respondent in the lower court was examined as RW1 and certain documents were also marked and thereafter on the basis of the representation made by the counsel for the respondent in the lower court, the evidence was closed. It is thereafter that Ext. P4 petition as I.A. No. 272/2014 was filed by the present petitioner to re -open the evidence to examine those witnesses. That petition was dismissed by the learned Family Court Judge by impugned Ext. P5 order which is being challenged by the petitioner in this petition.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that the case of the respondent was that in fact amount was not received neither from the respondent nor from her family members as alleged by the respondent in the petition filed by the petitioner before the court below and the amounts were received or borrowed from somebody else. In order to prove that fact some more evidence is required.