IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1415 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: 03.03.2010 Diksha Petitioner Versus Sandeep Sachdeva Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner ….. Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral) Respondent-Sandeep Sachdeva filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the petitioner, for dissolution of marriage, by a decree of divorce. The application was filed in the year 2007. As per information supplied, evidence of the respondent was concluded on 10.8.2009. Thereafter, it appears that many opportunities were given to the petitioner to lead her evidence. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner belongs to Fatehabad. She has already moved an application for transfer of the case to a nearby place, which is still pending. He further states that the petitioner has one child with her, out of the wedlock, as such, it was very difficult for her to arrange the witnesses to appear at Ferozepur, a distant place, on the date fixed. Counsel states that if only two effective Civil Revision No.1415 of 2010(O&M) opportunities are given, within a span of one month, the petitioner shall conclude her entire evidence. This Court feels that it is a matrimonial dispute. May be the petitioner was at fault in not producing evidence earlier, however, it appears that reasons were not such where the Court below should have been compelled to close her evidence. Respondent’s evidence was closed only on 10.8.2009. The petitioner is a resident of Fatehabad. Her application for transfer of petition to a nearby place is pending in this Court. Under these circumstances, this Court feels that the order passed is very harsh to the petitioner. In the absence of her evidence, she is bound to fail before the Court below. Case is stated to be pending on 5.3.2010 for rebuttal and arguments. This Court feels that if under these circumstances, by imposing costs, two opportunities are granted to the petitioner to lead her evidence, it will not cause any prejudice to the opposite party. In view of facts mentioned above, this revision petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to grant two effective opportunities within a span of one month to the petitioner, subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs, to be paid to the respondent on 5.3.2010, when the Court will fix the dates for adducing evidence of the petitioner. No further date shall be granted thereafter. At this stage, notice is not being issued as the matter is very small and if the respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure, unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings. This view finds support from the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No.9563 of 2002, (Batala Machine Tools Workshop Co-op vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur), rendered on June 27, 2002, in which it was held as under:- 2 Civil Revision No.1415 of 2010(O&M) “We are conscious of the fact that the instant order is detrimental to the interest of the respondent-workman. We are also conscious of the fact that no notice has been given to the respondent-workman before the instant order has been passed. The reason for not issuing notice to the respondent-workman is to ensure that he does not have to incur unnecessary expenses in engaging counsel to appear on his behalf in this Court. The instant order by which the present petition is being disposed of fully protects the interest of the respondent-workman inasmuch as the amount determined by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur by its order dated 22.5.2002 has been required to be deposited by the petitioner-Management before the Labour Court/Labour- cum-Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur.” Liberty is left with the respondents that if he feel aggrieved, he may move an application for recalling of this order. 03.03.2010 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 3