Vikash Upadhyay v. Asmita

Patna High Court CWJC No.1673 of 2016 (2) dt.13-07-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1673 of 2016 ====================================================== Vikash Upadhyay .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

Asmita .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Prasad Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 13-07-2016 Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Rajeev Roy for the petitioner.

Perused the order dated 23.11.2015 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial Case No.351 of 2013 whereby the Court below refused to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination.

It appears that the wife-respondent has filed divorce case against the husband-petitioner being Matrimonial Case No.351 of 2013. The witnesses were examined by the wife-respondent and were cross-examined. Thereafter, the application was filed under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. for recall of P.W.1 for further crossexamination on the ground that no proper answer was given by P.W.4 regarding the expenditure of wedding and no answer was given as to whether in the return of income tax, the expenditure of Rs.22 lacs has been shown or not.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1673 of 2016 (2) dt.13-07-2016 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1604(Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (deceased by L. Rs.) v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate) has held that "the power under the provisions of O. 18 R. 17 is to be sparingly exercised and in appropriate cases and not as a general rule merely on the ground that his recall and reexamination would not cause any prejudice to the parties. Such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in the evidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear any ambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination."

In view of the above settled proposition of law, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Thus, this writ application is dismissed.

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Saurabh/- U T