PARAMITA DUTTA Vs. DEBKALYAN ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 05.12.2019 wherein and whereby the Court below dismissed the application filed in I.A.No.2123 of 2019 in F.C.O.P.No.742 of 2017 under Order 13 Rule 3 CPC by the petitioner/respondent praying to demark the documents that were marked under Exs.P3 to P24 on behalf of the respondent/petitioner.

(2.) Heard Sri C.N.Moorty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Anita Ahuja, learned counsel for the respondent. Sri C.N.Moorty, Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents that were marked in the absence of the petitioner are photocopies of documents, which are irrelevant and inadmissible, but yet they are marked, which is not in accordance with law. When an application is filed by the petitioner for demarking, without considering the purport of Order 13 Rule 3 CPC, the Court below erroneously dismissed the application. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment reported in Sure Ranga Murali Kirshna Reddy v. Sure Yerri Vara Prasada Reddy 2018 (5) ALD 396.

(3.) On the other hand, Smt. Anita Ahuja, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the documents were marked very much in the presence of the petitioner's counsel. She submits that after long gap, the present application is filed, which is not maintainable. She also submits that the strict rules of evidence under Indian Evidence Act have no application to the proceedings before the Family Courts under Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short "?the Act of 1984') and Sections 14 and 20 of the Act gives power to Family Court to admit any document notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. She also submits that all the documents except marriage card, are print outs of e-mails and WhatsApp conversations. In support of her contentions, she relied on the judgments reported in Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Waleshan Bahadur v. Princes Manoly Jah 2018 (4) ALD 204, The Land Acquisition Officer, Vijayawada Thermal Station v. Nutalapati Venkata Rao AIR 1991 AP 31 and R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Visweswaraswami & V.P.Temple AIR 2003 SC 4548 = (2003) 8 SCC 752.