A court has the discretion to allow or deny a party's request to reopen evidence, and will consider factors such as the stage of the proceedings, the nature of the evidence, and the reasons for the party's failure to produce the evidence earlier.

Headnote:
FAMILY LAW - DIVORCE - RE-OPENING OF EVIDENCE - BANK STATEMENTS - CERTIFIED COPIES - BANKERS' BOOKS EVIDENCE ACT - COURT'S DISCRETION:
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner sought to reopen evidence to recall a bank manager to produce certified copies of bank statements that were not duly certified under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had already examined the bank manager and marked the bank statements as exhibits, and that there was no explanation for not taking steps to rectify the defect in the documents at that time.
Issues: Whether the court should allow the petitioner to reopen evidence to recall a witness to produce certified copies of bank statements that were not duly certified under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no irregularity or illegality in the family court's order dismissing the petitioner's application to reopen evidence, as the petitioner could rectify the defect in the documents by obtaining duly certified copies from the bank and producing them before the court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN &

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1945 OP (FC) NO. 101 OF 2024 OPDIV 643/2013 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN I.A/PETITIONER IN OP:

RAJAN SKARIAH AGED 69 YEARS, S/O SKARIAH, AZHAKATHUMANNIL, PERUMPETTY MURI, PERUMPETTY VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689615 BY ADVS.

K.SHAJ BEENA N.KARTHA C.IJLAL POORNIMA RAJAN ARUN CHAND BHARAT VIJAY P.

MAJID MUHAMMED K.

MINU VITTORRIA PAULSON GOPIKA GOPAL ARCHANA SURESH ARCHANA P.P.

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN IA/RESPONDENT IN OP:

VINCY MATHEW @ VINCY RAJAN AGED 64 YEARS, ALSO KNOWN AS VINCYKUTTY MATHEW, W/O RAJAN SKARIAH, AZHAKATHUMANNIL, PERUMPETTY MURI, PERUMPETTY VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689615 THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2024, THE COURT ON 20.02.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T Dated this the 20th day of February, 2024 C. Pratheep Kumar, J.

This petition is filed by the petitioner in OP.(DIV).No.643 of

2013 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla, against the order in I.A.No.19/2021, dismissing the above application.

2. The petitioner filed the above O.P under Section 10 (ix) and (x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, against his wife seeking a decree for dissolution of marriage. After the evidence of both sides was closed, the petitioner filed Exhibit P6 application praying for re- opening his evidence to recall PW4, the Manager, Federal Bank, Chunkathara Branch to call for some documents. As per Exhibit P10 order, the Family Court dismissed the above application on the ground that the same witness was examined much earlier and at that time, no steps were taken by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the above order dismissing Exhibit P6 I.A, he preferred this petition.

3. According to the petitioner, he has already produced Exhibit A29, A31 and A33 documents, which are bank statements of the Federal Bank, Chunkathara Branch. However those documents are not certified copies, duly certified as per the provisions of Bankers' Books Evidence Act. Therefore, the Bank Manager is to be summoned again and he is to be directed to produce certified copy of those documents.

4. Exhibit P1 is the copy of the O.P. filed by the petitioner before the Family Court, which is one for divorce alone under Section 10 (ix) and (x) of the Indian Divorce Act. As per Exhibit P6, he wanted to prove Exhibits A29, A31, and A33 to prove that certain items of property was purchased using his own money. It appears that at his own instance, the very same Manager (PW4) was already examined and Exhibits A29, A31 and A33 bank statements were marked. According to him, those documents are not duly certified as per the Bankers' Books Evidence Act. The petitioner has not offered any explanation for not taking any steps well in time, when PW4 was examined. Since Exhibits A29, A31 and A33 were already marked, the defect, if any in those documents as pointed out by the petitioner could be rectified if the petitioner produces duly certified copy of those documents from the bank, after giving an application to the Manager concerned. For the said purpose, there is no necessity to examine PW4 again.

5. In the above circumstances, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Family Court. In the result, this Original Petition (Family Court) is dismissed.

However, It is open to the petitioner to get duly certified copies of Exhibits A29, A31 and A33 from the Bank concerned and to produce before the Family Court within a period of ten days from today.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE Sd/-

C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE

sou.

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 101/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.P (DIV) NO.643/2013 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN OBJECTION FILED

Click Here to Read the rest of this document