SURJIT KAUR Vs. HARNEK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) relates to quashment of order dated 2.11.1988 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the evidence of the petitioner was closed by the trial Court.

(2.) IN brief, facts of the case are, that (sic) maintenance under petitioner against her husband. In that case, other evidence of the petitioner had been recorded and the clerk of the Punjab National Bank, Ludhiana remained to be examined. Process fee and diet money of the witness was deposited by the petitioner. But the said witness was not summoned by the trial Court, and, the evidence of the petitioner was closed on the ground that last opportunity had been granted on the earlier date, for production of entire evidence by the petitioner.

(3.) THE objection raised on behalf of the respondent, is without any merit. It has been conceded before me that the impugned order is an interim order and not a final order in the petition for grant of maintenance filed by the petitioner wife. Inherent power of the High Court recognised under Section 482 of the Code cannot be completely limited, or, shut out by imposition of bar created under Section 397(2) of the Code.