^ c, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram: Hon'bleShri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon' ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ First Appeal (M) No. 21 of 2008 Appellant Respondent Vs. Gaukaran Lal Sahu, S/o. Late Kejuram Sahu, aged about 38 years, .R/o. C-33, Tagore Nagar, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). Smt. Lata Singh, W/o. Ram Murti Singh, aged about 38 years, R/o. L.I.G. 14, Pt. Dindayal Puram, Hatkeshwar, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (CG). (Appeal under Section 19 ofthe Family CourtAct). Present: Shri K. Sharma, counsel forthe appellant. Shri Vineet Pandey, counsel for the respondent. Oral Order (Passedon31-3-20TO) Per Dhjrendra Mishra, J. The matter was listed for final hearing as well as hearing on I.A.No.2, an application fortaking additional documents on record. 2) First of all, we propose to consider the interim application No.2. By this application, the appellant prayed for leave of this court for taking certain documents on record. 3) Shri K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the documents form part of the service record of the respondent/wife and the same was not within the knowledge of the R?^s%^."^^ //"^ ^\ 1 "^ "^ ^,,^— K ^ ^ appellant during trial. During pendency of the present appeal, the appellantapplied under the Right to Information Act and obtained certified copies of the documents which form part of the service record of the respondent/wife. From perusal of the same, it would be evident that the respondenVwife was directed by the Conservator of Forest, Raipur, vide his memo dated 22-2-1988 to furnish the marriage certificate or affidavit for change of her surname and medical certificate so that her application for grant of maternity leave could be processed. In response thereof, the respondenVwife submitted her own affidavit stating therein that she was married to one Ram Murti Singh in Arya Samaj Mandir on 26-10-1987. Since the appellant had no knowledge regarding ^existence of these documents during pendency of the suit as the same were within the personal knowledge of the respondenVwife, these documents could not be filed before the learned Family Court. These documents are necessary for just resolution of the controversy between the parties, therefore, the same deserves to be admitted and taken on record at the appellate stage also. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the application on the ground that the instant application has been filed with an inordinate delay in appeal and there is no explanation for not filing the same before the Family Court. 5) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record ofthe Family Court. h J ^.^^ii^. ^ :'^^'' '"9 i'%fe (\ 6) From perusal of the documents, we find that the same pertains to service record of the respondent/wife who is working as Van Sevika in Social Forestry Project, Dhamtari Unit. After perusal of the documents, we are of the opinion that the same is necessary for just resolution of the issue involved in the matter. Since the documents form part of the service record of the respondenVwife. and as such it was within her personal knowledge and the appellant could not know about existence of these documents, we are ofthe opinion that the instant application cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. 7) Accordingly, we allow the application. Further considering that the appellant has been permitted to file the documents at the appeltate stage, we deem it appropriate to allow the respondenVwife to file any documents in rebuttal. 8) Since new documents have been permitted to be filed by the applicant with permission to the respondent/wife to file the documents, in rebuttal, recording offurther evidence would be necessary. 9) Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 25-9-2007 passed by the First Additional Principle Judge, Family Court, Raipur and t/ ^remit the matter to the Family Court, Raipur for fresh adjudication after affording opportunity to both the parties to adduce additional evidence, in the light of documents which have been filed by the appellant and the documents which may be filed by the respondenVwife, in rebuttal, in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today. 4 ^ 7 10) Parties are directed to appear before the learned Family Court on 19-4-2010. No order as to costs. 11) Record of the Family Court and copy of this order be sent to the concerned Family Court, immediately. 12) In view of the above, the appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Raju ^f-PJ-l -h^