Sarita vs Bheem Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 722 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1173/2021

Sarita D/o Shri Ram Pratap, by caste Jat, Aged 38 Years, resident of Ward No.14/19, Near OBC Bank, Bikaner Road, Suratgarh, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

----Appellant Versus Bheem Singh S/o Mani Ram Godara, Aged 40 Years, by caste Jat, Resident of Binjmayala, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar At Present House No. 630, Homelane City-I, Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harshit Bhurani through VC. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Mathur through VC Mr. Kshamendra Mathur through VC.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Judgment

13/01/2022

The instant misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant

Smt. Sarita being aggrieved of the order dated 15.07.2021 passed

by the Judge, Family Court, Hanumangarh in Misc. Civil Case

No.162/2017 whereby, the learned Family Court, rejected the

application filed by the appellant for summoning one Sahab Ram

as a witness on her behalf and also closed her evidence. The

appellant has also challenged the order dated 31.07.2021

whereby, the application for reopening the evidence has been

rejected.

We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at

bar and have gone through the impugned orders.

(2 of 3) [CMA-1173/2021]

Learned counsel Shri Harishit Bhurani representing the

appellant urged that the appellant does not insist that the witness

Sahab Ram should be summoned by the Family Court to give

evidence in her support. But as per him, the direction to close the

evidence of the appellant is contrary to the COVID SOPs prevailing

at the relevant point of time because the High Court had

prohibited all the subordinate courts of the State of Rajasthan

from recording evidence by restrictions which were lifted from

31.07.2021. Thus, the closure of the evidence of the appellant by

the learned Family Court, even though a prohibition for examining

the witnesses was prevailing, is contrary to the prevailing

guidelines issued by the High Court. On these grounds, Shri

Bhurani implored the Court to accept the appeal, set aside the

impugned orders and reopen the evidence of the appellant.

Per contra, learned counsel Shri Kuldeep Mathur and Shri

Kshamendra Mathur representing the respondents, vehemently

and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the

appellant's counsel. However, they too are not in a position to

dispute the fact that the High Court had issued the SOPs whereby,

all the subordinate courts of State of Rajasthan had been directed

not to summon witnesses for recording evidence. This restriction

was lifted on 31.07.2021. Thus, there cannot be any justification

for closure of the evidence of the appellant by the Family Court on

15.07.2021 on which date, the recording of evidence was

otherwise not permissible.

Even presently, the restrictions have been imposed by the

High Court directing all the subordinate courts of State of

Rajasthan not to summon the witnesses for recording of the

evidence.

(3 of 3) [CMA-1173/2021]

In this background, the impugned orders dated 15.07.2021

and 31.07.2021 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Hanumangarh

in Misc. Civil Case No.162/2017 are quashed and set aside. It is

hereby directed that after the aforesaid restrictions are lifted, the

appellant shall be granted two opportunities for completing her

evidence. However, it is made clear that the Family Court shall not

be under an obligation to summon the witness Sahab Ram in

evidence on behalf of the appellant who shall be at liberty to

examine him with her own effort, if so desired.

The appeal is allowed in these terms. Stay application is

disposed of.

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J

49-Tikam/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)