KUNJI LAL LODHI Vs. LATA BAI LODHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a plaintiff in a suit for divorce sought on the ground that because of the absence of uterus and non visual ovaries, the respondent is not able to perform intercourse. The claim has been espoused on certain medical examination certificate.

(2.) DURING pendency of the suit, petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking medical examination of the respondent. This application was rejected by the trial Court on 8. 2. 2008. The petitioner thereafter got certain doctors examined, but since their evidence did not favour the petitioner, again an application under Section 151 was filed for getting the petitioner examined by a doctor. This application was rejected by the trial Court on 17. 10. 2008 on the ground that the petitioner having closed his evidence cannot be allowed to obtain evidence by invoking Order 26 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) THE trial Court by its order dated 8. 2. 2008, rejected the petitioner's application in the following terms:<IMG>np_(1)_956_ilr_(MP)_2009.jpg</IMG> And while rejecting the second application by order dated 17. 10. 2008 it was held by the trial Court: <IMG>np_(2)_956_ilr_(MP)_2009.jpg</IMG>