HEM RANI SRIVASTAVA Vs. SAURABH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT Civil Revision has been filed questioning the validity of judgment and decree dated 11. 12. 2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 13, Allahabad in Original Suit No. 18 of 2000 Smt. Hem Rani Srivastava Versus Saurabh Kumar Srivastava. Smt. Hem Rani Srivastava had filed suit for partition. Said suit proceeded after filing of written statement by framing issue and evidence was also adduced. Order had been passed under Order 17 Rule 3 C. P. C. For recall of the said order, application was moved, but same was rejected. Against the same First Appeal From Order No. 902 of 2008 had been filed by Smt. Hem Rani Srivastava and this court quashed the aforementioned order and directed the court below to proceed in the matter and decide the same in accordance with law, preferably within period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. It was also made clear that proceeding will start from where proceeding had finished. Thereafter application 178-C has been filed mentioning therein that expert report, which has been submitted, same is incorrect and permission be accorded to file Expert report. Thereafter, application 179-C has been filed requesting that on the basis of affidavit 157-Ka of Saurabh Kumar Srivastava opportunity be provided to give evidence, as in the past, she could not adduce evidence and right to adduce evidence had been finished, thereafter she had given her evidence by filing affidavit and thereafter her right to cross examination has been taken away and ex parte decision has been given, and in this regard she should be afforded opportunity of hearing to cross examine Saurabh Kumar Srivastava. Said application has been objected to by filing objection , and thereafter said applications have been rejected.

(2.) IN the present case Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, No. 13, Allahabad has taken note of the fact that this court had given precise direction to take proceedings from the stage from where it had been terminated and in the present case date after date has been fixed for adducing evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, but at no point of time, evidence is being adduced by her. In this background court below has proceeded to mention that once already dates are being fixed for adducing evidence, then in this background it is not at all required to call for expert report. Court below has proceeded to mention that application 178-C has been filed deliberately to delay the proceeding. Court below has proceeded to mention that application 179-C, has been moved for cross examination of Saurabh Kumar Srivastava, giving reference of Order 18 Rule 12 and Sections 101,102 and 103 of Evidence Act, 1972 it has been categorically mentioned that plaintiff will have to adduce her evidence first and there are some exception incorporated in the rules. In the present case, plaintiff is insisting to cross examine the defendant which is legally unsustainable as plaintiff evidence has not been adduced. Once cogent reason has been given by the court below for rejecting said application and said orders are purely interlocutory order and do not amount to case decided, and further orders will not occasion any failure of justice.

(3.) IN this background this court looking into the fact of aforementioned case as noted above and precise observations made that it is deliberate device of lingering the proceeding, refuses to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 C. P. C. Consequently, civil revision is dismissed.