Civil Revision No.4668 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4668 of 2009 Date of decision : 19.08.2009 Shashi Bala … Petitioner Versus Manoj Kumar Mehta …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Raman Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Sabina, J. (Oral) Manoj Kumar Mehta-respondent has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (No.25 of 1955). Notice of the petition was issued to the present petitioner- Shashi Bala. After the conclusion of the evidence of Manoj Kumar Mehta, case was then adjourned for evidence of the petitioner-Shashi Bala. Vide impugned order dated 10.8.2009 (Annexure P-8), the evidence of the petitioner has been closed by order. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only one more opportunity be granted to the petitioner for her evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. A perusal of the interim orders placed on record shows that on 15.5.2009, the case was adjourned to 19.5.2009 for evidence of the petitioner-Shashi Bala. On the said date, examination-in-chief of one of the witnesses was recorded and cross examination was deferred as counsel for the Manoj Kumar Mehta was not feeling well. The case was adjourned to 2.6.2009. However, the case was taken up on 1.6.2009 as the Presiding Officer was on leave on 2.6.2009 1 Civil Revision No.4668 of 2009 and case was adjourned to 11.6.2009 for evidence of petitioner, Shashi Bala. On the adjourned date, examination of petitioner-Shashi Bala was conducted and case was adjourned to 16.7.2009 for her remaining evidence. On 16.7.2009, one more witness was examined and the case was adjourned to 27.7.2009 for evidence of the petitioner-Shashi Bala subject to payment of Rs.500/- as costs and it was to be treated as last opportunity. On the adjourned date, clerk from Hospital Una (H.P.) was present but could not be examined as the summons of Dr.Davinder Kumar were received back with the report that he was bound down in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Una (H.P.). Therefore, the witness who was present in the Court was bound down for 10.8.2009. On the adjourned date, the impugned order was passed which reads as under:- “Learned counsel for respondent has given up investigating officer of the FIR dt.15.6.2005 being unnecessary. No other RW is present. On the last date of hearing one witness from hospital Una (HP) was present who has to produce the record for examination in chief of the concerned Doctor but summons of that Doctor received back unserved which was taken dasti by the respondent. Record further shows that sufficient opportunities have already been granted to respondent to conclude evidence but failed to conclude the same despite last opportunities and case has already become history sheeted. No justification to further adjourn the case for evidence of the respondent, therefore, remaining evidence of respondent is closed by order of the court. For rebuttal evidence if any and for arguments, case is adjourned to 20.8.2009.” Thus, a perusal of the interim orders reveal that petitioner- Shashi Bala had been making every effort to effect the service upon the 2 Civil Revision No.4668 of 2009 witnesses and conclude her evidence. On 10.8.2009, the summons of Doctor Davinder Kumar were received back un-served. In these circumstances, it could not be said that the petitioner had not been making any effort to conclude her evidence. Moreover, in the interest of justice requires that the dispute between the parties be decided on merits and they are given sufficient opportunity to lead their evidence to prove their case. The respondent-husband can be compensated with costs. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.8.2009 is set aside subject to payment of Rs.1500/- as costs. Now the case is listed before the trial Court on 20.8.2009. The costs imposed by this Court, be deposited before the trial Court on 20.8.2009 and thereafter, the trial Court shall fix the case for evidence of the petitioner-Shashi Bala and only one more opportunity will be granted to her to conclude her evidence at her own risk and responsibility. Thereafter, the trial Court shall proceed further with the case as per law. [ SABINA ] JUDGE 19.08.2009 sd 3