AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 25.07.2011 by which the application seeking recall of order dated 09.06.2011 has been declined.
The petitioner is defendant in Matrimonial Suit No. 236 of 2005. The suit was instituted for a decree for declaration for restitution of conjugal rights.
In the suit after the defendant examined herself on 11.03.2011, at her instance the suit was adjourned on 25.03.2011, 19.04.2011 and 16.05.2011. Plea taken by the petitioner is that on account of her illness she could not produce her witnesses. On 09.06.2011 when the defendant failed to produce her
witnesses, her evidence was closed. In her application filed on 09.06.2011 seeking adjournment the defendant has merely pleaded that on account of her illness she has not been able to produce her witnesses. Along with this application medical certificate was not attached. In the application seeking time for producing witnesses, the petitioner has not disclosed the nature of her ailment, place where she was treated, the doctor under whom she is being treated and period of her illness. The petitioner has also not disclosed the number of witnesses she intends to examine. On bald assertions the application seeking further time for producing witnesses was filed by the petitioner. The trial judge in my opinion has rightly declined to reopen the defendant's evidence. Considering nature of the suit, which needs to be decided expeditiously, further time for producing witnesses has rightly not been granted to the petitioner.
Finding no merit in the writ petition, it is dismissed.
Order dated 28.08.2012 stands vacated.
Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the trial court through “Fax”.