The court ruled that a petitioner cannot seek to produce additional documents if their evidence has already been recorded.

Devan Ramachandran,J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order of the learned Family Court, Kunnamkulam, on various grounds; but asserting that his application to produce additional documents ought not to have been dismissed because his evidence is still going on.

2. We are afraid that we cannot find favour with the afore submissions of Sri.M.R.Sasith - learned Counsel for the petitioner, because the impugned order clearly records that the evidence of the petitioner "is already recorded by the evidence commissioner appointed in this case" (sic). If this is so, then the remedy of the petitioner was to have applied appositely, before making a request for production of documents. When this has not been done, admittedly, we cannot intervene in this stage. 3. Presumably being aware of the mind of this Court as afore, Sri.M.R.Sasith intervened to request that his client be allowed to move the learned Family Court appropriately and requested that such liberty be reserved.

4. We do not propose to reserve any liberty to the petitioner because, if he obtains remedies in law, it could not be precluded in spite of the impugned order.

In the afore circumstances, this Original Petition is dismissed; but without entering into the merits of any of the rival contentions of the parties.