Madras High Court
P.Kabilan vs D.Kavya Kalpana on 30 June, 2022
C.R.P(PD).No.441 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
C.R.P(PD).No.441 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.2991 of 2022
P.Kabilan ... Petitioner
Vs
D.Kavya Kalpana ... Respondent
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, pleased set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2021 made in
I.A.No.5 of 2021 in HMOP No.956 of 2019, on the file of the Additional Principal
Family Court, Coimbatore, insofar as it relates to the dismissal of the prayer for
examination of further witnesses is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.E.Ravichandran
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mariappan
Page 1 / 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD).No.441 of 2022
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the order of the
learned Additional Principal Family Judge, Coimbatore dated 19.11.2021 made in
I.A.No.5 of 2021 in H.M.O.P.No.956 of 2019.
2. The revision petitioner is the husband and the petitioner in
H.M.O.P.No.956 of 2019. During the pendency of the proceedings, three petitions
were filed in I.A.Nos.4 of 2021, 5 of 2021 and 6 of 2021 for the purpose of
receiving additional documents, to reopen the evidence of the petitioner and for
letting further evidence by examining further witnesses and also to recall P.W.1 for
further cross examination respectively. The learned trial Judge allowed the
petitions to receive further documents and for recalling P.W.1 for further
examination; but, the petition filed in I.A.No.5 of 2021, to reopen the evidence of
the petitioner and for further evidence was also partly allowed and the relief was
granted for the limited purpose of further examination of P.W.1 alone and not to
examine any more witnesses.
Page 2 / 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD).No.441 of 2022
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court ought not to
have restricted the petitioner's right to examine any number of witnesses and the
order as such passed in I.A.No.5 of 2021 is not legal.
4. The context in which the impugned order in I.A.No.5 of 2021 was made
has to be seen before concluding about its illegality. The records would show that
before filing the above said three Interlocutory applications, the petitioner side
evidence was closed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the petitions to reopen the
case for further evidence, to receive the additional documents and also to recall
P.W.1 for further examination.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reason for filing these
petitions originated from the evidence of R.W.2, where he produced certain
documents, as Exs.R4 and R9. Since, Ex.R4 is a receipt dated 09.11.2017, issued
by a lodge and the original of Ex.R4 is Ex.R9; in view of the production of the
Ex.R4 Lodge receipt, the petitioner would intend to call the Lodge Manager and
Page 3 / 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD).No.441 of 2022
examine him about the genuineness of the lodge receipt and hence these petitions
were filed.
6. While appreciating the merits of these petitions, the learned Additional
Principal Family Judge, Coimbatore thought it is fit to allow the case to be
reopened for the limited purpose of receiving additional documents and to recall
P.W.1 for further cross examination. In fact, the relief, seeking permission of the
Court to examine further witnesses, ought not to have been clubbed with the
petition filed to reopen the evidence. Since, the revision petitioner has filed a
separate petition to recall P.W.1 for further examination, the prayer to examine
further witnesses ought to have been prayed in that petition itself. Since, irrelevant
prayers have been mixed, the learned Additional Principal Family Judge,
Coimbatore needed to restrict the right of recall for further cross examine P.W.1
alone. So, the impugned order cannot be interpreted in the way that the learned
Additional Principal Family Judge, Coimbatore has restricted the right of the
petitioner to examine only one witness.
Page 4 / 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD).No.441 of 2022
7. Even in the context of the production of Ex.R4, it is the burden of the
respondent to prove its genuineness and relevancy. Had there been a separate
petition filed for recalling further witnesses, it will be convenient for the Additional
Principal Family Judge, Coimbatore to pass appropriate orders considering the
merits of the same.
8. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed
and the petitioner is given with a liberty to file a separate petition for recalling
further witnesses for further examination and in the event of such petition is filed,
the learned Additional Principal Family Judge, Coimbatore shall pass appropriate
orders after considering the merits and in accordance with law. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
30.06.2022
rgi
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Speaking Order
Page 5 / 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD).No.441 of 2022
R.N.MANJULA, J.
rgi
To
1. The Additional Principal Family Judge,
Coimbatore.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section, Madras High Court,
Chennai.
C.R.P(PD).No.441 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.2991 of 2022
30.06.2022
Page 6 / 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
