IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP (FC).No. 1234 of 2010(R) --------------------------- OS.458/2003 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ B.SREEKUMARAN NAIR, S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, AGED YEARS, RESIDING AT KUNCHU VEEDU, NEMOM, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.P.GOVIND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- PADMAKUMARI, D/O.AMBUJAKSHY AMMA, AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAUSTHUBHAM, KRISHNAPURAM GRAMAM, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- O.P.(FC) No.1234 of 2010-R ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner herein is the defendant in a suit filed by the respondent, his wife, for partition and separate possession of her half rights in an item of property. Acquisition is admittedly in the joint names of the parties. The petitioner/husband has set up a contention that the property belongs to him exclusively. The Original Petition was filed as early as in 2003. The evidence is over. The matter is at the stage of arguments. At this stage, the petitioner filed a petition for production of documents. As per Exts.P1 and P2, thirteen documents have been produced. It is submitted that the documents have already been received. The petitioner filed an application to recall the respondent, his wife, for cross-examination for the sole purpose of confronting O.P.(FC) No.1234 of 2010 -: 2 :- her with the documents referred to in Exts.P1 and P2. By the impugned order, the court below rejected the said prayer. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. 2. A perusal of the sequence of events in this case does not at all reveal any bona fides on the part of the petitioner. But all the same, we are satisfied that true to the adage that a stitch in time save's nine it would be advantageous to give the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine the respondent with specific reference to the 13 documents referred to in Exts.P1 and P2. Such luxury of a further opportunity can, of course, be granted only subject to very strict conditions taking note of the fact that the proceedings has been pending from 2003 and the matter had at long last reached the stage of arguments. 3. In the nature of the order that we propose to pass, we are satisfied that it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the respondent is available in India and will be readily available for cross-examination if opportunity is granted. 4. In the result: (a) This writ petition is allowed subject to conditions. (b) The case before the Family Court stands posted to this O.P.(FC) No.1234 of 2010 -: 3 :- date, it is submitted. Before the next date of posting, the petitioner shall deposit cost of Rs.7,500/- in which event an opportunity for cross-examination of the respondent shall be granted to the petitioner herein. If such deposit is made, the respondent shall be made available for cross-examination for one day and on that day the petitioner shall proceed with the cross-examination of the respondent. 5. The Family Court shall report to this Court whether the directions have been complied with. Call on 4/1/11. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge