K C EKANATHAN Vs. E PUSHPALATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THE nitty gritty, the warp and woof of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: THE petitioner/ respondent herein filed HMOP No,79 of 2002 for restitution of conjugal rights against the revision petitioner. Whereas the revision petitioner herein resisted the said HMOP on the ground that there was no marriage at all which took place between them. Evidence was adduced on both sides during enquiry. THEreafter, it appears that I.A.No.180 of 2007 was filed for recalling PW1 so as to mark the certified copy of the Marriage extract Whereupon the respondent/revision petitioner herein objected to it. However, the lower Court passed the impugned order dated 29.03.2007 with the observation that the said document could be marked through PW1 and if the revision petitioner is having any objection, he could summon the Sub Registrar and enlighten the Court relating to the alleged falsity of the Marriage Registration Certificate. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the present civil revision petition has been focussed on various grounds among others.

(3.) AT this juncture, my mind is reminiscent and redolent of the Honourable Apex Court judgment reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1158 (Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat and another). An excerpt from it would run thus: