SHANKARAN KRISHNASWAMY Vs. NANDITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Advocate for the revision petitioner and the respondent.

(2.) The Revision petitioner's son is the petitioner in O.P.No.1086 of 2003 before the I Additional Family Court at Chennai. The Revision petitioner's son appeared before the Court from 10.12.2002 and on various dates and he has also completed his evidence. As he happened to be a resident of U.S.A., he will not be able to come to India for the next six months and in the said circumstances, he filed an application seeking the leave of the Court, to dispense with his presence. It appears that the said application was not numbered and it was pending in I.A. S.R. NO.559/2003 and orders were also not passed. As the petitioner's son wants to go to U.S.A., he left the place and he has also given power of attorney to his father. But in the meanwhile, the application filed by the petitioner was misplaced and the same was not available. Subsequently, the same was traced out by the petitioner's advocate and it was returned. That in the above said circumstances, the revision petitioner who is the father of the petitioner, filed a petition seeking the permission of the Court to represent his son, and for other reliefs and in the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, he has stated that the petition filed by his son was returned and the defects noted down have got to be rectified and he seeks the permission of the Court to take return of the petition and also to rectify the defects. He has also stated that the petitioner himself intended to examine other witnesses to substantiate his case, for which, his son was not able to be present, as he would lose his residential status in U.S.A. It is also stated that his son intends to be present during the examination of the respondent and his presence will also be necessary at that time. Stating all these reasons, he has filed an application seeking the permission of the Court to take the return of the petition in Diary No.559 of 2003 dated 21.01.2003 and he was not allowed to do so. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) After hearing of the learned advocate for petitioner, it is made out that the party to the O.P., i.e. revision petitioner's son, has already been examined and the petition filed by him to dispense with his presence was returned for one reason or the other and by that time, the revision petitioner's son has left India and only in the said circumstances, the father has filed a petition seeking the permission of the Court to take the return of the petition to represent the same and that was not permitted.