IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.108 of 2008. Date of decision: 06.11.2008. Jagan Nath …Petitioner Versus Tara Devi …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Mr.Rupinder Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.M.L. Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This petition has been preferred by the defendant against the order passed by the learned trial Court vide which the right of the defendant to lead evidence has been closed. So far as the first part of the order of the trial Court is concerned, I do not find that the Court has committed any illegality. The defendant- petitioner had been granted ample opportunity to lead evidence. However, the learned Court was clearly wrong in not granting any adjournment on the ground as prayed for which was that the son of the defendant had suffered a heart attack and was confined to bed 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 in hospital at Ludhiana. This was an exceptional circumstance. Although the learned Court noticed this fact but rejected the request in a mechanical fashion which is against law. Law has to be tempered with justice and mercy. Disease is not something which a party invites of his own free volition. It is a tragedy which can strike any individual. Surely, in the circumstances as pleaded, the Court should have seen that the occasion for praying for an adjournment is not manipulation of the judicial process but a circumstance beyond the control of the petitioner herein. In these circumstances, the order passed by the learned trial Court is quashed and set aside. The petitioner herein will be given an opportunity to produce evidence in support of his defence. This revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. All interim orders shall stand vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. November 6, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.