SURYABHAN RANUBA WAGH Vs. SHOBHA BHIMRAO PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Advocate Shri A. M. Dabir h/f Advocate shri L. R. Pathak for revision petitioner. Sole respondent, although served with the notice and Rule notice, is absent.

(2.) THE revision petition challenges order passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge (J. D.), Aurangabad, on 18. 7. 1995 in Regular Civil suit No. 904/1994 on the file of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad. One Sonabai had filed RCS no. 436/1991 seeking injunction against present petitioner performing another marriage. However, that suit was dismissed, although said sonabai claimed to be wife of present petitioner. Thereafter, present respondent, who is younger sister of Sonabai, in the year 1992 filed an application 125 of Cr. P. C. , 1973, for maintenance against present petitioner. It is the contention of petitioner that even respondent is not his wife. He had on alternative, but to file a suit for declaration that respondent is not his wife and, therefore, RCS No. 904/1994 was filed. The respondent/original defendant, although appeared in the suit through her Advocate, she did not file any written statement. Court ordered the plaintiff to lead his evidence. After production of documents on 18. 7. 1995, the petitioner entered the witness box and as soon as his examination in chief was completed, learned Advocate for respondent/defendant was on his legs to cross examine the plaintiff. The inclination of the Judge to allow the lawyer of the defendant to cross examine the plaintiff was objected by plaintiffs lawyer by filing an application Exhibit 26, which application was rejected and hence the present revision petition.

(3.) THE only question is whether a party, who has not filed any written statement crystallizing its defences as also specific contentions, can be allowed to cross examine the plaintiff. As back as in 1938, in the matter of Vinayak V/s Chintaman (AIR 193 8 Bombay, 470), it wasobserved as follows: