' The brief facts giving rise to the filing of instant Writ Petition are that the respondents Nos.2 and 3 filed a suit for the recovery of dower as well as maintenance against the petitioner. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner moved an application on 29-6-2004 praying therein that since the witnesses cited by him in the annexed schedule of witnesses had been won over and were not willing to depose on his behalf, hence, he be allowed to amend the schedule and new witnesses be allowed to be inserted therein. This application was resisted by respondents Nos.2 and 3 and finding no force in the application of the petitioner, the learned Judge Family Court/respondent No.1 dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 14-10-2004. This order has been challenged through the instant Writ Petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order has brushed aside the social' atmosphere in our country where people are easily influenced by the inhabitants of the locality and since the witnessed already cited in the schedule of witnesses by the petitioner who are residents of the same locality, they could not bear the pressure of the residents of the area and ultimately refused to depose as witnesses on petitioner's behalf. He further contended that in family cases no hard and fast procedure is prescribed and Judge Family Court has the discretion to evolve his own procedure for the fair trial of a family matter.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the petitioner and has prayed for its dismissal by contending that the petitioner is guilty of slackness and that the application was moved just to prolong the trial of the suit. Learned counsel while ,placing reliance on (2003 CLC 1787), argued _that provisions of section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 did not allow the Court to amend the schedule of witnesses. .
4. I have heard the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record.
5. The main ground which weighed with the learned Judge Family Court/respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order is that the petitioner failed to give rationale justification for amendment in the schedule of witnesses at belated stage. He has further, observed that petitioner nowhere pointed out that how and when he came to know that witnesses had been won over by the respondents. To me, the learned Judge Family Court has acted too technically; otherwise no heaven would have fallen if the petitioner would have been allowed to amend to schedule. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents that application was moved with the object of prolonging the trial; is bellied by the conduct of the respondents therriselves, as by opposing the application as well as contesting this writ petition they themselves allowed the proceeding to prolong, otherwise, they could easily make statement before the learned trial Court consenting to the amendment of the schedule and by now the suit might have been finally decided.
6. As regards the jurisdiction of the leaned Judge Pamily Court to allow amendment, the Family Courts Act is silent, meaning thereby that the Judge Family Court is free to evolve his own procedure and to act in a judicial manner while deciding such-like matters. It is fundamental principle of jurisprudence that justice should not only be done but should also be seen to have been done. The respondents Nos.2 and 3 by opposing the application and the respondent No.1 by dismissing the same paved the way for the petitioner to prolong the matter by way of approaching this Court, ,otherwise, the matter could have been easily decided at the trial Court stage by burdening the petitioner with costs.
7. For what has been discussed above, I allow this writ petition. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 14-10-2004 passed by learned respondent No.1 is set aside, the, petitioner is allowed to amend his schedule of witnesses and to produce evidence according to the amended schedule, subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000 which would be condition precedent for filing the amended schedule. This being family matter, the learned Judge Family Court/respondent No.1 shall, therefore, try to conclude the trial of the case expeditiously but in any way on or before 15-3-2005.
No order as to costs.