Jinu S Baby vs Jiffy S. Jinu

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner is admittedly the respondent in OP(Others)1236/2023 filed by the respondent herein, seeking partition of the property in question, on the assertion that it was  rchased in their joint names using her patrimony.

Smt.Aleena Jose – learned counsel for the petitioner, conceded that the trial in the matter is now complete; but that even before it was so, her client had filed an application seeking to produce certain documents as additional evidence and also to recall one of the witnesses – on either side for the purpose of marking them. She pointed out that, however, the learned Family Court dismissed this application through Ext.P10 order, entering into a finding – even without enquiry – that the documents in question are not relevant.

Smt.Aleena Jose explained that, going by the case of the respondent in Ext.P1 Original Petition filed by her, she asserts that the property in question was purchased by her patrimony; but that, in the documents now sought to be produced – namely Exts.P3, P4 and P5 – she has no such case. She argued it is, therefore, that these documents are imperative to be on record, for which the respondent will have to be recalled.

Sri.Varghese Prem – learned counsel for the respondent, in response, submitted that the attempt of the petitioner is only to delay the proceedings because, there is no inconsistency in any document or pleading as asserted. He argued that, in fact, the petitioner has already been examined as DW1 and that his cross examination reveals several aspects against him. He predicated that the attempt of the petitioner now is to fill up the lacunae; and hence that it cannot be permitted. As an alternative submission, he contended that, since his client has no fear about any evidence being brought on record – being aware that the truth is with her – she has no objection in DW1 being recalled and the documents marked, so that her counsel can cross-examine him, as also test the veracity of the documents in question. He argued that, therefore, the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that his client should be recalled for the purpose of marking the documents, is untenable, particularly because they are all certified copies of Court records.

We do not propose to enter into the merits of any of the rival contentions for the singular reason that the Original Petition is still pending before the learned Family Court. It is for the said Court, at the first instance, to decide upon the truth and veracity of all the assertions and it would not behoove us to speak even peripherally about this.

Coming to the controversy in question, the trial of the Original Petition is admittedly over and normally, it is only in exceptional circumstances that this Court should intervene. However, since we notice that the documents sought to be produced are certified copies of Court orders and are attempted to be impelled for the purpose of controverting the case of the respondent, we are of the view that the alternative suggestion of Sri.Varghese Prem ought to be accepted, so that there will be no further issue with respect to the case in future, particularly after the judgment and decree is delivered.

In such perspective and since we cannot allow the trial of the case to continue ad infinitum, particularly when the Original Petition is stated to be listed tomorrow for final hearing, we deem it appropriate to issue the following orders:

a) We record the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client will be present before the learned Family Court at 11 A.M. tomorrow (12.08.2025). We also record the consent of counsel on both sides that DW1 can be recalled and Exts.P3 to P5 documents attempted to mark through him, subject to all remedies and liberties that are available to the respondent herein.

b) On the afore undertaking and consent, we allow this Original Petition and set aside Ext.P10; thus consequently allowing Exts.P8 and P9 applications (I.A.No.8/2025 and 9/2025); however, recalling only DW1 and no other witness.

c) We request the learned Family Court to attempt to examine DW1 with respect to the afore directions, if possible tomorrow, or on the next available date, without causing any delay to the Original Petition.

d) Needless to say, all available remedies to both sides during the afore exercise and the disposal of the Original Petition shall be made available to them.