The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-May-2023 18:08:33 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 9040 OF 2022 Snigdha Patnaik @ Mohanty …. Petitioner Mr. Prakash Kumar Beura, Advocate Subhransu Mohanty -versus- …. Opp. Party
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Prince Patnaik, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 18.05.2023 4. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Order dated 13th December, 2021 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in C.P. No.634 of 2015 is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby petition dated 18th November, 2021 filed by the Petitioner to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination, has been rejected. 3. Mr. Beura, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Opposite Party has only examined one witness, i.e., P.W.1. Due to some difficulties, P.W.1 could not be cross-examined fully. Taking advantage of the absence of the Petitioner, Opposite Party closed the evidence on his behalf and the matter was posted for evidence on behalf of the Petitioner, who is Respondent before learned Family Court. It is his submission that if another opportunity is given, the cross-examination of P.W.1 will be completed in one day. Thus, learned Judge, Family Court should have allowed the application with certain terms and conditions. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-3 and to permit the Petitioner to cross-examine P.W.1. Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-May-2023 18:08:33 // 2 // 4. Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the Opposite Party vehemently objects the same and submits that the sole intention of the Petitioner is to delay the matter. The Opposite Party, who is the applicant before learned Judge, Family Court, filed his evidence in chief on 12th October, 2017. He was examined on 6th September, 2018. On that date the cross-examination of P.W.1 deferred to 3rd November, 2018. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 21st December, 2018 for cross-examination of P.W.1, on which date due to cease work called by the local Bar Association, the matter stood posted to 18th January, 2019 for further cross-examination. However, P.W.1 was cross-examined on behalf of the Petitioner on 12th April, 2019 and the matter was adjourned to 21st June, 2019 for further cross-examination. Thereafter, on 23rd September, 2019, further cross-examination of P.W.1 was resumed. Instead of completing the cross-examination of P.W.1, the matter was again adjourned to 24th October, 2019 on the prayer of the Petitioner for further cross-examination of P.W.1. Although P.W.1 was present on that date, the Petitioner along with her counsel were found absent. So providing an opportunity to the Petitioner, the proceeding was adjourned to 22nd November, 2019 for further cross-examination of P.W.1. On that date, due to non-cooperation of the Petitioner, further cross- examination of P.W.1 could not be done. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 18th December, 2019 for further cross- examination of P.W.1. 5. From the above, it appears that despite opportunities being given by the Petitioner, she is avoiding to complete the cross- examination of P.W.1. On 22nd October, 2021 when the case was Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-May-2023 18:08:33 // 3 // posted for further cross-examination of P.W.1, both the parties were present in Court. But, when the case was called, the Petitioner left Court and in spite of loud calls, she did not appear. Accordingly, the cross-examination of P.W.1 was closed and the matter was posted to 5th November, 2021 for further evidence, on which date the Opposite Party filed a memo stating that he does not want to adduce further evidence. On the basis of such memo, evidence of the Applicant (Opposite Party) was closed and the matter was posted to 18th November, 2021 for evidence on behalf of the Respondent-Petitioner. Without adducting any evidence, the Petitioner filed an application on 18th November, 2021 for recall of P.W.1 for further cross-examination. In view of the above, he submits that a party, who is negligent and does not cooperate with the Court for early disposal of the civil proceeding, no leniency should be shown to her. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, more particularly, the impugned order under Annexure-3, it appears that the submission of Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner is correct. It further appears that several opportunities have been given to the Petitioner to cross-examine P.W.1. Further the petition to recall P.W.1 (Annexure-2) does not show any reason, as to why, the P.W.1 should be recalled, when he has been cross-examined on two to three occasions. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in the meantime, the Respondent-Petitioner has adduced her evidence, as there is no stay order passed by this Court. On being asked about the reason, as to why, an application Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-May-2023 18:08:33 // 4 // for recall of P.W.1 is filed, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner will complete the cross-examination of P.W.1 within one day. But, he did not spell out any reason as to why P.W.1 should be recalled, when evidence of the Applicant- Opposite Party has already been completed and in the meantime, the Respondent-Petitioner has examined witnesses. 7. On perusal of the impugned order under annexure-3, it appears to be a well discussed and a reasoned one. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the said order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 9. Since the Civil Proceeding is of the year, 2015 and the parties have led substantial evidence in the matter, learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar shall make all endeavour to see that C.P. No.634 of 2015 is disposed of an early date. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ms (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Page 4 of 4