Orders refusing to issue warrant for ensuring attendance of witness and rejecting application for examining minor on commission are interlocutory and not appealable.

1. This appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to the Act) has been directed against the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur dated 23.2.1993, whereby appellants application filed under Order 16 Rule 10 and 12 C.P.C. for issuing summons or bailable warrant for enforcement of attendance on witness Babu Lal Lohia resident of Jodhpur was dismissed and another application filed under Order 26 Rule 4 C.P.C. for issuing commission for examining the statement of minor Arjuh @ Komal was rejected.

2. Succinctly stated the relevant facts are that Smt. Manju Devi was married to late Shri Shyam Sunder Bhattad, the son and brother of appellants Nos. 1 and 2 Nath Mal and Satya Narain respectively and the brother-in-law of appellant No. 3 Smt. Kamla. Out of wed lock of Shyam sunder and Smt. Manju a son namely Arjun @ Komal was born on 16.3.1989. Unfortunately Shyam Sunder died in an accident on 11.2.1990. It is alleged that after the death of Shyam Sunder Smt. Manju Stayed with the minor son at appellants' house in Jodhpur and thereafter she went away to her parents house at Udaipur allegedly to contract a second marriage. It appears that on 7.2.1992, Smt. Manju lodged a First Information Report at Police Station, Suraj Pol, Udaipur against the appellants Nos. 2 and 3 alleging that they kidnapped her minor son Arjun from her custody from Udaipur and took over him to Jodhpur. A case was registered and after investigation, it is alleged, that a Final Report was given on 30.3.1992. Thereafter Smt. Manju filed an application on 8.6.1992 under Section 25 of the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890 for the custody of her minor son before the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur. She also prayed for Arjun's ad-interim custody in her favour. This application was holly contested by the appellants. The learned trial Judge framed two issues on 2.9.1992. The first issue pertained to the controversy as to whether the respondent was entitled to get back the custody of her minor son and whether it would be in the welfare and interest of the minor? The second issue related to the objection raised by the appellants about the jurisdiction of the Family Court to hear that application. Since the learned Judge thought that it was necessary to expeditiously dispose the said application, he did not pass any order on respondent's application for the interim custody of the minor. The learned Judge fixed 22.9.1992 for recording the evidence of the parties. On 22.9.1992, the appellants filed an application for the production of the case diary from the police station pertaining the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent. That application was rejected. Immediately thereafter the appellants filed another application for granting time to file a revision against the said order, which was also rejected. Thereupon the appellants filed yet another application seeking time for filing transfer application in the High Court, which was also rejected. On that day the respondent examined her four witnesses. However, the appellants did not cross examine them. It appears that the appellants filed a transfer petition in this Court, which was rejected. The appellants also filed civil Misc. Appeal No. 377/92 in this Court, wherein it was ordered that if the appellants file an application before the Family Court then they be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent. It was further ordered that the appellants shall produce the minor Komal in the Family Court. On 8.1.1993, the application filed by the appellants for cross-examining the respondent's witnesses was allowed on a cost of Rs. 251/-. However, the appellants did not produce the minor in the court and informed the court vide their application dated 12.1.1993 that minor Arjun was not prepared to come to Udaipur and that respondent Smt. Manju could meet him at Jodhpur. The appellants crossed-examined respondent's witnesses on 12.1.1993 and 1.2.1993. They also examin