Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 149 (KER)

Vineethamol v. Manoj Kumar

2018-02-15

SATHISH NINAN, V CHITAMBARESH

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sathish Ninan, J. 1. The dismissal of applications seeking reopening' of the evidence and for summoning witnesses are under challenge in this Original Petition. Original Petition No.1463 of 2011 is filed by the petitioner herein for return of gold ornaments and money. Evidence was taken through an Advocate Commissioner who filed report 22.07.2017 after recording evidence. Evidence was closed on 25.07.2017. An application filed by the petitioner herein as I.A. No.1173 of 2017 seeking issuance of summons to witnesses 2 and 3 in the witness list submitted by her was pending. Since there was no request to reopen the evidence, the said application, I.A. No.1173 of 2017 was dismissed. In the meantime respondent filed I.A. No.1228 of 2017 seeking permission to cross-examine a witness examined by the petitioner herein since the witness was not cross-examined due to the inconvenience of this counsel. The said application was allowed subject to payment of costs. Thereafter the present application has been filed by the petitioner for reopening the evidence and to issue summons to witnesses. As rightly pointed out by the court below the earlier application filed as I.A. No.1173 of 2017 to issue summons to the very same witness was dismissed. The said order is not challenged. Apart from the same, we notice that witness No. 3 sought to be examined is the Regional Dowry Prohibition officer. It being a quasi judicial authority, cannot be summoned. Proceedings before the said authority can be proved by production of certified copy of the relevant documents. It is brought to our notice that Ext P3, a copy of the proceedings of the said authority does not bear the certification of the authority stating it to be a true copy. Other witness sought to be examined is a beautician who is stated to* have attended the petitioner at the time marriage, we do not think that the evidence of the said witnesses are necessary or will aid to prove the petitioner's case. At any rate as noticed supra, the proceedings before the Dowry Prohibition Officer can be1 proved by1 producing certified of the relevant document, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the court below. The Original Petition is dismissed.