' S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.--- Instant writ petition is filed against the impugned order dated 22-12-2008 whereby the learned Judge Family Court closed the right of evidence.
2. The brief facts given in the writ petition are that respondent No,1 on 28-10-1998 filed a suit for maintenance of herself and three minors. This suit was contested and petitioner denied the relationship and filed a suit for jactitation of marriage against respondent No,1. Both these suits were consolidated by the learned Judge Family Court, After framing of issues, evidence of respondent No,1 was recorded while petitioner failed to cross-examine the witnesses. On 29-2- 2008, the petitioner filed an application for acceptance of his list, of witnesses, which was contested by the respondent and the learned Judge, Family Court dismissed the same. The petitioner preferred Writ Petition No,18524 of 2008 in this Court against the impugned order dated 17-11-2008 but the same was dismissed in limine. The suit for maintenance proceeded further. The evidence of the respondent was recorded and petitioner was granted last opportunity. On the next date 22-12-2008, he did not produce evidence without any justification and his evidence was closed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the sole ground that on 22-12-2008, the absence of the petitioner was not wilful because he could not produce his witnesses due to certain unavoidable circumstances, therefore, the learned trial Court should have granted one more opportunity.
4. Heard.
5. There is no provision in Family Court Act, 1964 to the effect that evidence of the party shall not be closed in any case. The very purpose of the enactment is to ensure expeditious disposal and Court can close the evidence of a party who fails to adduce evidence without sufficient cause. Section 11 provides -that on the date fixed for evidence, the Family Court shall examine the witnesses produced by the parties in such order as it deems fit. In this case, despite a caution .Of last opportunity to produce the evidence, the petitioner as defendant had failed not only to appear in Court but also produced the witnesses. It was thus a case of double default committed with a view to gain more time. The principle as contained under Order XVII, rules 1(3) and 3, C.P.C. Was .Attracted. The matter is pending for the last more than 10 years. The petitioner was given last opportunity but he did not care even to appear in Court. The previous adjournment was granted at his own request with a caution. In the circumstances, the trial Court was justified to close the evidence. There is no illegality in the impugned order calling for interference in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed in limine.