1 (3) WP 2976/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk WRIT PETITION NO. 2976 OF 2010 Seema Suresh Kadam .. Petitioner Vs. Suresh Waman Kadam .. Respondent Mr. Neelesh V. Kalantri i/b Mr. Viresh V. Purwant for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 9th February, 2011. P.C. 1. Notice issued by the Registry of this Court has been received back. It shows that the Respondent does not live at the address mentioned in the notice. The notice has been affixed at the last known address of the Respondent. The Respondent is accordingly served. 2. Hence Rule. 3. The Petitioner wife has challenged the order of the 5th Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Thane dated 20th February, 2010 rejecting her application for setting aside the order rejecting her application for adjournment of the Petition when the Petition was ripe for hearing. 4. The Petition was filed by the Respondent husband 15 years ago in 1995. The evidence of the husband was completed. The evidence of the wife was to be given. As late as in 2010 the wife was not prepared 2 (3) WP 2976/10 with her evidence. She applied for adjournment. She wanted to rely upon documents. The nature of the documents was not mentioned to the Court. The Court rightly rejected her application for adjournment when the matter was old and part heard. 5. She took out another application to set aside that order. The Court has not allowed that application. Allowing that application would be a mockery of the Court procedure. The application which was rejected on an earlier date. That order cannot be set aside by another application made on a later date because that would tentamount to granting the application on a later date and still further delaying the trial. 6. Even on the next date of hearing when the Petitioner wife applied for setting aside the earlier order rejecting her application for adjournment, it is not shown that she filed or even tendered a duly affirmed affidavit of examination-in-chief before the Court along with her affidavit of documents and that she tendered her list of documents. If that was done, the Court may have considered the hearing of the case on merits. 7. The Petitioner wife has now produced her affidavit of examination-in-chief affirmed on 20.02.2010. She has not shown any affidavit or list of documents sought to be relied upon by her duly affirmed. She claims to be heard. 8. It is seen that she was ready with her oral evidence. She had no documents to support her claim. At best she could have been allowed to be cross-examined 3 (3) WP 2976/10 upon her oral evidence in her affidavit of examination- in-chief. The same position holds good even today. It is also not known how far the Petition has proceeded in the last one year after it was directed to proceed without the evidence of the wife. The only latitude that could be given to the Petitioner is to allow her to be cross-examined without any further delay if the Petition still remains pending. 9. Hence rule is made absolute in the following terms: On the Petitioner wife paying costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousands only) to the Respondent husband within 2 weeks from today, her affidavit of examination-in-chief affirmed on 20.02.2010 shall be taken on record if the Petition is pending hearing and final disposal. The learned Judge shall then proceed with her cross-examination. The Petitioner wife shall not apply for any adjournment on any ground whatsoever. She would, however, be entitled to file any affidavit of documents or list of documents also within 2 weeks from today. This Petition will have become infructuous if the ex parte decree is already passed in the Marriage Petition. ( ROSHAN DALVI, J.)