IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 516 OF 2008 SHRI. MOHAN PUTU RAIKAR ... Petitioner Versus SMT. CHANDA CHANDRAKANT KITTUR ALIAS MANDA MOHAN RAIKAR ... Respondent Mr. Rohit Bras De Sa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M. B. D'Costa, Senior advocate with Mr. J. A. Lobo, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date:- 2nd September, 2008 P.C. 1. The petitioner applied for recall of an order dated 29.10.2007, which application having been rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that it was not maintainable, this writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner has already responded to the marriage petition being Marriage Petition No.30/2003/I filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division at Margao. The petitioner-respondent was under cross examination. The wife who is respondent before me has filed the petition for divorce. Her Lawyer was present to cross examine the witness, but the petitioner was absent. His Advocate moved an application stating that he had failed to contact him and, therefore, desired to withdraw his appearance. The Advocate was granted time so that he could contact his client i.e. the petitioner and ask him to make alternate arrangement. The Court, while allowing the Lawyer to address a notice to the petitioner, closed the case of the respondent-petitioner before me as he had failed to appear before the Court. The petitioner received a notice from the Advocate, but could not remain present immediately as he was ill. The petitioner, therefore, made an application on 14.11.2007 styling it as an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying for recalling the order dated 29.10.2007 closing his evidence. 3. Upon that application, the original petitioner-wife raised objections and, by the impugned order, the learned Judge dismissed the same. 4. With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for both sides, I have perused the Order dated 29.10.07, a copy of which has been handed over across the Bar. 5. Without entering into any larger issue with regard to the maintainability of the application or whether the provisions of Section 151 of the Code could be invoked to recall such an order, in my view, interest of justice would be subserved if a final opportunity is granted to the petitioner-husband to submit himself to cross examination and if he does so, he would be cross examined by the wife's Lawyer. All this to be done on the date and time stipulated by this Court. 6. Both sides agree that this Course may be adopted, but the wife's Counsel contended that the petitioner should not be allowed to delay the matter further. He prays that the petition which is pending since 2003 should be directed to be disposed off expeditiously. There is some substance in the apprehension of the wife and in no case, the husband would be allowed to delay the proceedings. In these circumstances, the following order would meet the ends of justice : a) If the petitioner husband appears in the trial Court on 10th September, 2008 at 10.00 a.m. and subjects himself to the cross examination, the proceedings before the Trial Court to go on at the stage where cross examination of the husband remained inconclusive. b) Needless to clarify that the petitioner-husband failing to appear on the said date would mean he forfeits his right to lead evidence and Order dated 29.10.08 would stand without any interference from this Court and even this petition would stand dismissed without any further reference to the Court. c) It is also clarified that the petitioner-husband must subject himself to the cross examination, even if he is unable to engage a Lawyer on the said date or if the Lawyer engaged fails to turn up, in that case also the Trial Court shall not adjourn the proceedings on any ground. d) Needless to further clarify that if the petitioner appears and cross examination proceeds, but remains inconclusive, then, the learned Judge to fix such other date and time for conclusion of the cross examination. f) Considering that this is a matrimonial litigation, interest of justice would be subserved if the Trial Court is directed to dispose off the main matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order of this Court. All contentions of both sides are kept open. The impugned order stands substituted in the above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition disposed off. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ssm.