Civil Revision No.3048 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3048 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 9, 2011 Sapna @ Seema .....Petitioner v. Sunil Kumar .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Namit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.12110-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.3048 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 23.2.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, vide which evidence of petitioner-wife was closed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that respondent-husband obtained an ex parte decree of divorce against petitioner-wife and when she came to know about the same, she filed an application for setting aside ex parte proceedings and ex parte decree, under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was contested by respondent-husband. Issues were framed by learned trial Court on the said application on 24.7.2009, when the case was adjourned for evidence of petitioner-wife for 28.11.2009. Thereafter some opportunities were availed by petitioner-wife for evidence. Part evidence of petitioner-wife was also Civil Revision No.3048 of 2011(O&M) -2- recorded. However, last opportunity was granted by learned trial Court to the petitioner to adduce evidence and when no other witness was present, the evidence of petitioner-wife was closed by learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 23.2.2011. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is to examine only one witness, i.e., process server, who allegedly effected service in this case upon her. It has been further contended that on request of petitioner, summons of this witness were also issued and, however, the same were not received back and the case was adjourned for that purpose by learned trial Court for 23.2.2011, on which date as well, Mahipal Singh, Process Server, did not appear and, however, instead of issuing his summons again, evidence of petitioner-wife was closed. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-wife that only one opportunity be granted to petitioner-wife and she would produce the said witness at her own responsibility by taking dasti summons. In view of these facts, in the interest of justice, and in view of the fact that witness sought to be examined is an official witness, for whose appearance summons were also issued by learned trial Court, one opportunity can be granted to petitioner-wife and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, the present revision petition is partly accepted. Impugned order is modified to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to allow petitioner-wife to examine Mahipal Singh, Process Server, as a witness, at her own responsibility by taking the summons dasti, subject to payment of `5,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. Disposed of accordingly. 9.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.3048 of 2011(O&M) -3-