Asha, J.,
O.P.(F.C.) No. 343/2014 is filed by the respondents 4 & 5 in O.P.No. 45/2008 on the file of the Family court, Ernakulam against the order passed on 26-6-2014 in I.A. No. 2304/2014 by which their petition Ext P3, for reopening the evidence and to recall the respondent herein and the witnesses for cross examination was rejected as per Ext.P4 order on the ground that it was belated and that there was no reason for not availing the opportunities in time.
2. According to the petitioners in this O.P., they were not given any notice by the Advocate Commissioner as to recording of evidence and, whenever contacted, they were assured that they will be duly informed at the stage when cross examination starts. Petitioners could not cross examine the witnesses, before the Family Court closed the evidence, as no information was received as assured. The court below rejected Ext P3 petition on the ground that there is a direction from this Court in O.P. (F.C.) No. 2792/2012 which was disposed as per Ext P1 (in O.P.(FC) No.344/2014 dated 13.9.2012, directing to dispose of the cases between the parties within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
3. O.P.(F.C.) No. 344/2014 is filed by the wife-petitioner in O.P. No. 45/2008 & 46/2008, seeking a decree for realisation of money, gold ornaments, etc and for divorce. In this case, the grievance of the petitioner is against the order Ext.P4 dated 26.6.2014 by which the Ext P3 petition-I.A. 2301/2014 to re- open the evidence of petitioner and for permission to conduct examination of witnesses on her side, was rejected on the ground that it was belated and she did not avail the ample opportunities before the evidence of respondent started and that there is time limit fixed by this Court in Ext P1 O.P.(F.C) for disposal of the cases.
4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as for respondents in both the cases.
5. Learned counsel for the wife-the petitioner in O.P.(F.C.) No. 344/2014 opposed the prayers in O.P.(F.C.) No. 343/2014 saying that she had already incurred huge expenditure for examination of witnesses as well as the parties and it will be difficult for her to incur any further expenditure.
6. Learned counsel for the husband-the first respondent in O.P.(F.C.) Nos. 344/2014- submitted that no further witnesses can be permitted to be examined, as the matter will be unnecessarily delayed.
7. In view of the circumstances that parties on either side i.e the petitioners in both the cases are seeking re-opening of evidence in O.P. 45/2008 & 46/2008 for cross examination/ further examination of witnesses, and the court below did not permit the same, mainly on account of the time limit fixed by this Court, we are of the view that opportunity should be given to them, as sought by them in I.A. 2304/14 and 2301/14. We therefore set aside the impugned orders in both these O.P.(F.C)s and direct the court below to re-open the evidence in the O.Ps and permit the respective petitioners to conduct cross examination/examination of witnesses.
8. It is made clear that no other witnesses other than those sought in the I.As shall be permitted to be examined. When cross-examination is being conducted at the instance of the petitioners in O.P. (F.C.) 343/2014, the charges towards the Commissioner shall be met by them.
9. We notice that the time limit fixed by this Court in the judgment Ext P1 has already lapsed long back. Therefore, in view of the orders passed by us in these cases, we are of the view that a further direction need be issued to expedite the matter. We therefore direct the Family Court, to dispose of the O.Ps. within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Accordingly, these O.P.(F.C)s are disposed of.
Sd/-
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (JUDGE) AL/-
True copy Sd/- P.V.ASHA (JUDGE) P.A to Judge