VIPIN JAIN Vs. NANCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 9/5/2015 passed by District Judge, Guna in case No.36/2014 (HM), by which the application filed by the petitioner for grant of opportunity to cross examine the respondent has been rejected.

(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner is facing a trial under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce. During the course of arguments, it was also accepted by the petitioner himself that he too had filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but the same has been rejected. Against which, first appeal is pending before this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner was being tried for an offence under Section 498-A of IPC and by judgment dated 14/5/2019 passed by the JMFC, Guna in RCT No.1278/2013, he has been acquitted.

(3.) It appears that earlier the petitioner was granted various opportunities to lead evidence and since he failed to do so, therefore, the trial court by order dated 9/5/2019 closed the right of the petitioner to lead evidence. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as MP No.2756/2019 and the said petition was dismissed by order dated 27/5/2019. It appears that prior to the dismissal of MP No.2756/2019 the petitioner was already acquitted by the Court of JMFC, Guna. The petitioner on 25/6/2019 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to amend his written statement by incorporating the fact of acquittal of the petitioner. It appears that the said application was allowed by the trial court and the amendment sought in the written statement was allowed. It appears that the petitioner filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC seeking permission to cross examine the respondent in the light of the acquittal of the petitioner under Section 498-A of IPC and the said application was allowed by order dated 7/9/2019 and the respondent was directed to appear before the Court for cross examination on 23/9/2019. However, from order dated 7/9/2019 it does not appear that the petitioner ever brought the fact of dismissal of MP No.2756/2019 to the notice of the trial court as there is no reference of order dated 27/5/2019 passed by this Court in MP No.2756/2019. It appears that the respondent was cross examined by the petitioner.