Heard Mr.Kranti Vinayak, petitioner-original defendant, party-in-person, who has, by filing the present Civil Revision Application under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenged three orders passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar, below applications Ex.7l, dated 21.2.1995, Ex.76, dated 1.3.1995 and Ex.79 dated 29.3.1995, in Special Civil Suit No. 318 of 1993 (formerly Special Civil Suit No.119 of 1992). Those applications were submitted by the petitioner-original defendant for cross-examining the original plaintiff, who is his wife, and for a direction that she may be ordered to produce certain documents mentioned in the applications.
2.It may be stated that the plaintiff who is the wife of the defendant had instituted a suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmedabd (Rural) praying for the following reliefs:
(a) to grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling, leasing, mortgaging, donating, exchanging or in any other mode or manner transferring or alienating or parting with possession of any part thereof or creating any charge, encumbrance, lien, etc.. in or upon or in respect of the immovable property situated at 1218, Sector-27, Gandhinagar.
(b) to grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling, leasing or in other mode or manner transferring or alienating the jewelleries and other movable properties mentioned in the Schedule annexed to the plaint or parting with possession of such assets or any part thereof.
(c) to grant mandatory injunction directing the defendant to hand over the jewelleries lying inside the Locker No.207, State Bank of India, Gandhinagar and other movable properties mentioned in the schedule to the plaint.
3.The learned trial Judge after framing of the Issues commenced examination-in-chief of the plaintiff-wife on 7.4.1993. It appears from the certified copy of her deposition, produced alongwith the memo of the present petition that recording of evidence of the plaintiff was completed on 8.3.1995.
4.Application Ex. 71 was submitted by the defendant to permit him to ask again to the plaintiff certain questions disallowed by the court during the cross-examination of the plaintiff. By that application the defendant also requested the court to strictly warn the plaintiff's advocate not to raise objections to the questions asked to the plaintiff. He further wanted the plaintiff to make him available for inspection copies of the list of ornaments in her possession/control and record of bank transactions. The learned trial Judge, rejected the said application by passing the following order :
" Heard Mr.Vinayak, defendant, party-in-person and Mr.J.P.Bhatt, L.A. for the plaintiff.
Questions enumerated in this application were disallowed by this court in cross-examination. All the questions are not to the point, totally vague and imaginary and further not relevant. Hence this application without merits is being disposed of as rejected. No order as to costs."
5.Second application Ex.76 was submitted by the defendant on 1.3.1995, requesting the court to permit him to reask the questions stated in the application. The learned trial Judge by rejected the same, by passing the following order on 1.3.1995 :
" Heard Mr.Vinayak, defendant in person and Mr.J.P.Bhatt, L.A. for the plaintiff.
This application is ill-conceived inasmuch as the questions which the defendant wants to reask were not allowed at the time of cross-examination of plaintiff. Looking to the nature of the suit, relief claimed by the plaintiff and defence put by the defendant in his W.S., the questions are totally irrelevant and not to the point and will not serve any purpose. Hence this application being without merit is hereby rejected."
6.Again the defendant submitted application Ex.79 to permit him to reask the questions which were not allowed by the trial court, during cross-examination of the plaintiff on 8.3.1995. This application was also rejected by the learned trial Judge by order dated 29.3.1995, which reads as under :
" Heard both sides. Looking to the nature of the reliefs claimed and defendant's defence, these questions are totally irrelevant and very vague and general in nature. Hence this application being devoid of any merits, is hereby rejected."
7.I have today heard the petitioner-original defendant. It may be stated that this revision is under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein this court can interfere with the trial court's decision only if the trial court exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it or it failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested or it acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the present case, the plaintiff has filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling, leasing, mortgaging, donating, exchanging or in any manner transferring or alienating or parting with the possession of the suit properties, being immovable property situated at 1218, Sector-27, Gandhinagar and the jewelleries and other movable properties mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff has to prove that she has contributed for the acquisition of the said property and/or jewellery and other movable items. Therefore, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the same. The questions which the defendant wants to ask to the plaintiff were already disallowed by the learned trial Judge when the plaintiff was cross-examined by the defendant. In the impugned orders, the learned Judge has also observed that the questions which the defendant wants to ask were irrelevant and they were already disallowed by the court during the cross-examination of the plaintiff. In my opinion, while rejecting the applications Exhs.71, 76 and 79, the learned Judge has not committed any jurisdictional error, and therefore, no interference is called for by this court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under S.115 of the C.P.Code.
8.As a result of the foregoing discussion, this revision application being devoid of any merits deserves to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed. Notice discharged.
Sd/-
Dt.23.9.1996.( M. H. Kadri, J.)