The court affirmed the Family Court's discretion to deny reopening evidence, emphasizing the need to avoid further delay in a case pending for years.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order of the learned Family Court, Ottappalam, which dismissed I.A.Nos. 2/2025 and 3/2025 filed by him in O.P.No.603/2018.

2. The above mentioned Original Petition was filed by the respondents, seeking return of gold, money, as also past and future maintenance; and it is admitted that their examination was completed on 07.12.2021, subsequent to which, the examination of the petitioner herein was also completed soon thereafter.

3. The petitioner, however, filed I.A.No.2/2025 to reopen his evidence, accompanied by I.A.No.3/2025, annexing therewith a set of documents, with a prayer that it be permitted to be placed in evidence. Both these applications have now been dismissed by the learned Family Court through the impugned order, concluding that the attempt of the petitioner is only to delay the proceedings; particularly when the Original Petition is now listed for final hearing and disposal.

4. Sri.Jojo.C.A – learned Counsel for the petitioner, argued that, as evident from the documents sought to be produced - which are annexed to Ext.P4, the endevour of his client is to prove that the original petitioner – his wife, had filed cases against her earlier husband, in which the same gold ornaments were the subject matter.

He argued that, if the documents sought to be placed in evidence are so allowed, it would “cut at the root” of the evidence of the original petitioner; and hence that the findings of the learned Family Court are in error.

5. We are aware that we have not issued notice to the respondents yet because, even though this matter was listed at least thrice before, time was taken by the petitioner for one reason or the other.

6. When one examines the impugned order, it becomes ineluctable that the learned Family Court has evaluated the application of the petitioner, to find that the documents sought to be produced are not relevant to the cause and; further, that his attempt appears to be to delay proceedings, because the evidence of the parties were over at least in the first half of 2022; with the matter being now listed for hearing and disposal. It is also pertinent that the Original Petition is of the year 2018; and it is nearly seven years since it has been pending.

7. Be that as it may, adverting to the specific assertions of Sri.Jojo.C.A, we have examined Ext.P4, which is the affidavit in support of I.A.No.3/2025 in the Original Petition. Apart from saying that certain documents are relevant, the averments therein do not substantiate it in any manner whatsoever; and going by the list of documents annexed to it, and as admitted by Sri.Jojo.C.A, they are stated to be Court records and orders of certain proceedings, which the Original Petitioner is stated to have initiated against her earlier husband.

8. As we have said above, the application or the affidavit in its support, are conspicuously absent as to the relevance of the documents sought and as to why they were not produced at the time when the petitioner was examined as early as in the late 2021, or early 2022. Before us also, the assertion is that the documents are relevant, but again without substantiating how it is, except the learned Counsel informing us that the gold ornaments covered by such documents may be the same as involved in this case.

9. Coming to the delay in applying for reopening evidence and for producing documents, the learned Family Court has recorded the submissions of the petitioner that it is because he had entrusted all such to his Counsel, who was appearing in this Court in another matter. However, I.A.No.3/2025, namely Ext.P4, does not make any such mention and it appears to be a submission made at the bar