THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.5217 of 2009 ORDER: The respondent filed O.P.No.7 of 2009 in the Court of VI Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Kadapa against the petitioner for divorce. The trial of the O.P. is in progress. On behalf of the respondents, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and on behalf of the petitioner, evidence was also adduced to certain extent. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.199 of 2009 under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. with a prayer to recall P.W.1 i.e., the respondent herein to confront him with the document. It is stated that the respondent pleaded the ground of cruelty against the petitioner and in a Criminal Case, the respondent himself gave an undertaking to the effect that he would not harass the petitioner. It was urged that the said document is relevant and the same needs to be put to the respondent. The application was resisted by the respondent. Through its order, dated 18.09.2009, the Family Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this civil revision petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. It is no doubt true that the trial of the O.P. has progressed to a substantial extent and the evidence on behalf of the respondent was closed. The petitioner wanted to confront the respondent with an undertaking submitted by himself before a Criminal Court. According to her, that has a bearing upon the allegation of cruelty made against her. The trial Court stated three reasons while rejecting the application. The first is that the petitioner mentioned that document in her examination. The second is that the respondent would suffer prejudice, in case he is confronted with the document and the third is that an undertaking given by the respondent while obtaining the bail cannot be treated as relevant in the O.P. None of the reasons mentioned above can constitute the basis to reject the application. The effort of the petitioner to confront the respondent with an undertaking given by him to the effect that he would not harass the petitioner, is in the context of an allegation of cruelty made by the respondent. The mere fact that this document was referred to in the evidence of the petitioner cannot obviate the necessity. Further, even before the document is put to witness, the Court cannot pronounce upon its relevance. Viewed from any angle, the order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, the I.A. shall stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 05.12.2009 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.5217 of 2009 Date: 05.12.2009 JSU