The court considered the petitioner's lack of diligence and the interest of justice in allowing the recall of a witness for cross-examination in a matrimonial dispute.

By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 31/7/2015 passed by the learned Adhoc Civil Judge Senior Division, Bicholim in MP No.7/2007/A. By the impugned order, the application (Exhibit D-69) for recalling PW.1 for the purpose of cross examination has been rejected.

2. The brief facts are that the parties are husband and wife. The respondent has filed a matrimonial petition for dissolution of marriage against the petitioner in the year 2007. The evidence in the matter had begun on 6/7/2012, when the chief examination of the respondent (PW.1) was recorded. He was cross examined in part and the further cross examination was deferred on 3/8/2012. The matter was kept on 19/10/2012, on which date the petitioner had filed an application for production of documents, which was allowed and the matter was posted for further cross examination on 10/12/2012. On that date, Advocate Shri Navelkar holding for Advocate Shri Desai had sought time which was granted and the matter was adjourned to 18/1/2013. On that date there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner and the matter was adjourned to 8/2/2013 and thereafter on 15/3/2013. On 15/3/2013, the counsel for the respondent had sought time, which was granted subject to costs of Rs.500/-and the case was fixed on 26/4/2013. The matter was adjourned from time to time thereafter.

3. It appears that on 19/8/2013, the petitioner had filed an application seeking production of documents and hence the matter was adjourned to 25/9/2013 and, thereafter, up to 2/4/2014, on which date the application was allowed and the matter was fixed for evidence on 5/6/2014. The subsequent dates on which the matter was kept are set out in details by the learned Trial Court in the impugned order. Suffice it to mention that earlier that is, on 13/10/2014, on account of absence on behalf of the present petitioner, the evidence of the respondent was closed and it was fixed for defence evidence on 20/10/2014. On that date, on an application filed by the petitioner, PW.1 was recalled for cross examination. The matter got adjourned to various dates up to 30/1/2015, when the recall was allowed subject to costs of Rs.1000/-and the case was fixed on 27/2/2015. Subsequently the matter got adjourned till 12/6/2015, when on account of the absence of the advocate of the petitioner the matter, was closed for judgment and was kept on 20/6/2015. However, in the later hours on 12/6/2015 itself, the petitioner appeared in person and filed an application (Exhibit 69) for recall, which has been rejected. That is the order which is subject matter of challenge in this Petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it hardly needs to be stated that the petitioner has not been diligent in conducting the trial of the petition, expeditiously. There are more occasions than one, when on account of the absence on behalf of the petitioner, the case before the learned Trial Court was required to be adjourned. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the roznama would show that for the entire period from 2012, when the evidence of PW.1 started, the petitioner is not responsible for pendency of the matter, as there were occasions when the petition was adjourned, not at the instance of the petitioner. Even assuming it to be so, it certainly cannot be said that the petitioner has acted with due expedition in conducting the case and cross examining PW.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that in the interest of justice, one opportunity may be granted and the petitioner shall ensure that PW.1 is cross examined on the next date. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Mr. Agostinho Godinho Vs. Mrs. Maria Eufrezita Paulina & Ors., reported in 2012 (6) ALL MR 647. It is submitted that this Court upon relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case