ORDER

The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.Nos.VII to IX filed under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC, under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC in MC.No.51/2023 dated:24.01.2024 passed by the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru.

2. Petitioner is the husband. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

3. The petitioner/husband has filed MC.No.51/2023 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. In that the husband has cross-examined the wife on 29.11.2023 and in the month of January, 2024, the present applications came to be filed. It is his case that wife had given complaint to the higher officers seeking 50% of the pension amount and retirement benefits and she has completely denied about the filing of MC.No.151/2016 which she has withdrawn by filing of a memo. Further, it is stated that husband has executed the gift deed and sale deed in favour of his wife by registered sale deed dated 01.02.2012 and he wanted to produce the RTC. The same was opposed by the respondent/wife stated that as a privilege affixed application at the belated stage he cannot be permitted to produce the said documents. The trial court had dismissed the application observing that all these documents were in his possession much prior to filing of the MC. It is necessary to keep in mind that amendment to CPC was in the year 2001, after the amendment, the parties are not entitled for produce the document at any stage according to their whims and fancies. The court has discretionary power to permit the parties to produce the documents and the same is relevant for the effective adjudication of the case. The court has observed the proposed documents are not relevant to decide the matter on merits and further there is no proper explanation why these documents are not filed and accordingly dismissed the petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits he is seeking the divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The documents which he wants to produce as additional evidence they are the original letter dated 27.09.2018 which was addressed by the wife and copy of the domestic violence petition filed by her, copy of the entire order sheet and a memo dated 02.06.2022 filed by the wife in MC.No.151/2016 and the certified copy of the sale deed dated 01.02.2012 and the RTC copy, he submits that all these copies are relevant to prove the cruelty of the wife and the court below without considering importance of those documents, had dismissed the petition. He submits that the MC is of the year 2023, it cannot be said that at the belated stage the application is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that now after cross-examination of DW-1, the petitioner cannot come up with such an application and the trial court had rightly dismissed the petition, as it is filed at a belated stage. He submits that even some of the documents are not admissible in evidence, the trial court had rightly dismissed the petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The MC itself is filed in the year 2023. In the month of November, 2023, the cross- examination of the respondent is completed immediately in the month of January, 2024 this application is filed. As rightly observed by the court, after the amendment, the parties as a matter of right cannot file a petition however with the leave of the court and disclose the valid reasons. As far as the belated stage is concerned, considering that the litigation is of the year 2023, though the cross-examination of the respondent is complete, when some of the documents which are relevant for deciding the litigation between the parties, just on the ground that documents were not filed at the earlier stage, that itself cannot be a ground for the court to dismiss the application. Learned counsel submits that some of the documents are xerox copies, that aspect of i