THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY C.R.P.Nos.3695, 3696 and 3730 of 2017

COMMON ORDER

Since all these revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are filed questioning the docket orders dated 29.06.2017 passed in the three petitions filed under order XVIII Rule 17 and under Section 151 of C.P.C., and under Order VII Rule 14(2) CPC in O.P.No.271 of 2013 by the XIV Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Vijayawada, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner herein filed three petitions in O.P.No.271 of 2013 to reopen the evidence of petitioner for further examination, to recall the witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 and under Section 151 of CPC and finally, to receive the documents set out in the list under Order VII Rule 14(2) of CPC and mark them as exhibits. The petitioner filed said O.P., under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of marriage by granting a decree of divorce and the said petition was posted for pronouncement of the judgment. Before pronouncement of the judgment, the petitioner came to know that some of the documents are required to be filed as those documents were not filed earlier during examination of P.W.1 due to oversight of the counsel appearing and recently, as he was advised to file those documents to prove his case, he filed the petitions to reopen the evidence of P.W.1, recall the witness and receive the documents set out in the list i.e., divorce papers signed and sent by respondent to petitioner dated 26.07.2012, printed copy of SMS sent by respondent to the petitioner through cell phone, dated 26.07.2012 and DBS Bank account statement of respondent dated 24.07.2012.

3. The respondent filed counter denying the material allegations, inter alia, contending that there are no grounds much less sufficient grounds to reopen the evidence when the OP was posted for pronouncement of judgment, and in the absence of any explanation for the delay, the petitions cannot be allowed and sought for dismissal of those applications filed by petitioner.

4. Upon hearing argument of both the counsel, the trial Court dismissed all the three petitions assigning its own reasons. Aggrieved by the same, the present revisions are filed, mainly on the ground that the documents set out in the list by the petitioner are necessary to establish his case and the trial Court failed to consider the necessity to reopen, recall the evidence of P.W.1 and to mark the documents, which are fatal to the case of petitioner and denial of opportunity to bring the evidence on record is contrary to the principles of natural justice and therefore, the Court below has committed an error in dismissing the petitions and prayed to set aside the orders passed by the Court below.

5. During hearing, the counsel for petitioner reiterated the contentions, whereas, the counsel for respondent supported the orders passed by the Court below.

6. Considering rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, the points for consideration are:

“(i) Whether the evidence of petitioner be reopened when the OP was posted for pronouncement of judgment?

(ii) Whether the documents set out in the list can be received at the stage when the OP was posted for pronouncement of judgment, by exercising discretion under order VII Rule 14 of CPC?

(iii) Whether P.W.1 be recalled to mark the documents exercising power under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC?”.

7. Point No.1:

I.A.No.581 of 2017 in O.P.No.271 of 2013 is filed for reopening the evidence of P.W.1 while admitting that the main OP, which was filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was posted for pronouncement of judgment, on the ground that the petitioner could not file certain documents, but recently, the counsel advised him to file those documents. But, such power cannot be exercised on mere asking, more particularly, when the OP was posted for pronouncement of judgment. This question is squarely covered by the judgments of t