THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4190 OF 2011 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in I.A. No.38 of 2011 in O.P. No.14 of 2009 dated 26.08.2011, the present revision is filed. This Court, while ordering notice before admission, permitted the Counsel for the petitioner to take out notice on the respondent. Though notice was served, and proof of service filed vide USR No.1743 of 2011 dated 21.11.2011, no Counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. O.P. No.14 of 2009 is filed by the petitioner against the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The impugned I.A. is filed by the petitioner to reopen his evidence in the O.P. to the limited extent of marking the certified copies of the order passed in C.C. No.108 of 2009 dated 13.04.2011 whereby the charge sheet filed, on the basis of the complaint by the respondent, for offences under Sections 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was dismissed; and a certified copy of the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.4400 of 2009 quashing the complaint filed by the respondent in so far as it is concerned the petitioner’s brother and sister-in-law. The Court below, by an elaborate order, went into the relevance of these two documents and held that these two documents had no relevance to substantiate the contention of the petitioner as pleaded in the O.P. The Court below held that there were no bonafides in the petition, more so as there was no gross negligence on the part of the petitioner in prosecuting his case in the main O.P. at the earliest point of time. Both these documents, whereby the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case which was initiated on the basis of a complaint lodged by the respondent; and the complaint made by the respondent against the petitioner’s brother and his wife was quashed by this Court; cannot be said to be irrelevant to the O.P. filed for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty. The finding of the Court below is, therefore, patently illegal. Further the petitioner had specifically pleaded, in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A, that the order passed in C.C. No.108 of 2009 dated 13.04.2011 was after the evidence on both sides was closed; and, the matter was posted for arguments. From the order of the Court below itself it is evident that the evidence of the respondent was closed on 19.12.2010, and the matter was posted for arguments on 20.12.2010; and the order of the Criminal Court in C.C. No.108 of 2009 dated 13.04.2011 was passed thereafter. As such the petitioner could not have mark the said document when his evidence was recorded by the Court below. The order of the Court below, in refusing the petitioner’s request for reopening his evidence to mark these two documents, would undoubtedly result in substantiate injustice being caused to him, since these documents may well have a bearing on the O.P. filed by him for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. I consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to set aside the order of the Court below in I.A. No.38 of 2011 in O.P. No.14 of 2009 dated 26.08.2011. The Court below shall reopen the matter only for the limited purpose of enabling the petitioner to mark copies of the order of the Criminal Court in C.C. No.108 of 2009 dated 13.04.2011; and the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.4400 of 2009. It is made clear that the Court below shall fix a particular date on which the petitioner shall adduce evidence for the purpose of marking of these two documents. In case the petitioner fails to avail the opportunity given to him, it is open to the Court below to proceed to hear arguments in the O.P, and pass orders in accordance with law. It is also made clear that any observations made by this Court in this order is only for the purpose of the interlocutory application, and the Court below shall not be bound by any such observations while deciding the O.P. finally on its own merits. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Date: 09.12.2011 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR