SIN6LE BB^CH; HON'BLE JUSTICE OHIRENUtA MISHRA W.P. [2271 N0.1593/2008 PEUTIONBl (Plaintiffl RESPON NT (Defendant) Vs Smt, Shikha Kumar, W/o Ariel I Kumar, oged about 33 years, R/o near M.P. Housing Board Colony, fajmhari, Dist- &urg (C.6.) Ariet I. famar, S/o Late Ismaeil Kumar, R/o Pappu 5TD, Christlon Colony, Sarbmangala Road, bist- Korba (C.6.) Present: Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. \ 'l (Possed on 13.3.2008) Per Dhlrendra Mishra. J; 1. Heard on admission. 2. By this petH-ion under Articte 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has impugned the order dated 20.2.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned ist Addittona! Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Civil Suit No.l33A/07 wrfiereby the application preferred by the defendant/respondent herein under Order 16 Rule 1 of 0?C for permission to examine Atember of the Medical Board as his witness has been allowed. 3. Srievflnce of the petitioner is thot the parTies to the proceedings closed their evidence on 16.1.2008 and the mcriter was fixed for final arguments on 22.1.2008 and on That day after hearing final arguments the motter was fixed for pronouncement of judgment on 25.1.2008. However, The judgment was not pronounced on that dflrt-e and instead, an applicotion under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC (Annexure P-2) for permission to examine another witness was filed by respondent herein and the same was allowed by the court below vide impugned order dated 20.2.20)8. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aib-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 16 of 0>C hos wrongly been interpret-ed by the Family Court, as the above provision enables a party to the proceeding to apply for summoning ony other witness whose name does not appear in The list referred to in sub-rule (1) and the court may, for reasons to be recorded, permit aich party to call such witness if he shows sufficient cause for omission to '^s-s- 'l. ^.'^ '^w mention the name of such witness in the said tist'. In the instant case, cert-ificote issued by the Medical Board and filed by the defendant/respondent was avaitable in the record. Medical certificate was also filed and proved by the petitioner during the trial. However, during the course of arguments when it was argued by the ptaintiff thot the certfficate of medical board has not been duiy proved by the defendant, the said applicotion was fited by t& defendant on the date fixed for pronouncement of judgment Just to plug the loop hotes of his case. Reliance is placed in the matter of Kulwant Stngh Vs. Makhan Singh reported in ASt 1993 Punjab & Haryana 106. 5. From perusal of the order sheets cmnexed with this petition it appeors thot the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a petition for divorce under Sections 10 & 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1969 and all the efforts of reconciliation by the Fcnnily Court did not yield any reaifr. From the pleadings of the respective part-ies it appears that the disputed issue can t" be effect-ively resolved by medical JeyA excminat-ion report (md therefore, the Family Court keeping in view thot the parties were ready for medicol examinotion and filing the medical report considered it appropriate to direct the competent medical officer to examine and aibmit report. A memo was also issued to the District- Medical Officer (Ciwl Surgeon) vide order dated 4.5.2006. Non-applicant was cross- examined on 20.12.2007 ond thereafter on 16.1.2008 the applicant examined t)r. Neela Kumhare and on this date the part-ies closed their evidence and the mcctter was fixed for arguments on 22.1.2008. After hearing the orguments of the part-ies on 22.1.2008, the matter was fixed for judgment on 25.1.2008. On this date, the defendant/ respondent herein filed an apptication for summoning one member of medical board to prove the certificate, issued by the medical board, filed by him in the proceedings. The said applicotion was allowed by the court' betow with cn observofion that for deciding the core isaie involved in the motter, reporf in favour of the defendant !s material evidence, therefore, in the interest of justice, to adjudicflte the dispute between the part-ies effectivety and for impart-ing substantial justice, appropriote opportunity must be given to the defendant/responderrf herein. < 7 ..•/ fri-Sii S fc --3^ ' ^i Sa*-^';.;^''"^. '^ i ^y 'i | ^ -• .':; .^ "^. ':~v€/ "••'•}-...^OE"1' 6. In the mott-er of Kulwant Singh (Supra) the qiplication of the ptaintiff under Order 18 Rute 17 of G>C to lead additional evidence for producing handwrH'ing experf was reject'ed. Civil Revision filed by the plaintiff was atso dismissed with an observation thot by no stretch of imagination it can be reasonably inferred that the plaintiff was unuware of his duty to produce hand-writing expert- to prove the due execution of the pronote cnd the receipt in question when, he initiolly le3 evidence in rebuttal, nor there is allegotion that he could not produce the said evidence ot the relevant time. The plaintiff thus cannot be permitt'ed to produce the handwriting expert at this late stage. 7. It is settled law that supervisory jurisdiction under Art'icle 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised for keeping the subordinate courts wtthin bound of their jurisdicl'ion. It is not avaitable for correcfing mere errors of facts or law and it is available only when; (1) error is manifest and apparent on the face of record; and (2) grwe injustice or gross failure of justice has been occasioned thereby. The powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India are to be exercised sparingly where judicial conscience of the High Court dict-ates it. 8. In the instant case, the core issued involved in dispute could be adjudicated by medical examination report of the parties and in thot view of the mfftter the court below permitted the parties to undergo medicat examinotion by the medical board and obtain the report- and accordingly direction was issued to the concemed medical authority in this regard. It is also pert-inent to mention that (rfter the defendant had closed his evidence, the plaintiff was perm'rtted to examine the doctor <md prove the medical cert'ificote. 9. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order shall not occasion any grave injustice or gross failure of justice to the pkxintiff/petrtioner warranting interference under Arf'icle 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. In The result, the petition being devoid of any substance is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed in limine. 11. No order as to costs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge