FATHIMA Vs. RAHAMUTULLAH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.641 of 2012 has approached this court with this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging an order dismissing her application in I.A.275/2020 for re-opening the case for cross-examining D.W.1. She has laid the suit inter alia against her husband and the parents- in-law for injunction and for other reliefs.

(2.) The learned trial Judge has dismissed the application Vide the order now impugned. Be it a cursory reading, or a careful reading, what this order conveys in paragraphs 5 to 10 is evident: it is a general statement, expressing the agony which the courts are put to by some litigants. It is extracted below:

(3.) The institution of Courts are available for remedying a wrong done to the right for the justly aggrieved. Still, the Courts do not invite the litigants to its premises, but merely make a remedial forum available and keep their doors open to all those who seek remedy. It is an invitation by appointment for those who have a reason to access the Courts for justice. It is their choice. But, once approached, they need to follow a certain discipline and a reasonable timetable.