THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3407 of 2010 ORDER: Despite service of notice, neither is the respondent present nor has any counsel entered appearance on her behalf. The petitioner-husband filed O.P.No.112 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur seeking divorce from the respondent-wife. The petitioner-husband examined himself as PW.1 on 21.04.2010. The case was posted to 29.04.2010 for his further evidence and, since he did not appear on 29.04.2010, his evidence was closed and the matter was posted to 01.06.2010 for the respondent’s evidence. It is the petitioner’s case that closure of evidence on his side would deny him the opportunity of examining important witnesses, and would cause irretrievable prejudice and hardship. Before the Court below, the respondent-wife contended that reopening the case after closure of evidence, that too after ample opportunity had been given to the petitioner, should not, ordinarily, be permitted unless he explains the prejudice that would be caused to him. The Court below observed that reasonable opportunity was already given to the petitioner to adduce his further evidence, but he did not avail the opportunity; the reasons assigned by him were self-serving; in view of the amended provisions of the CPC, both the parties to the litigation were required to file their evidence by way of affidavits with a view to avoid delay; and since the said procedure was not followed, the interlocutory application was liable to be dismissed. Sri K.V.Subba Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner- husband, would submit that the petitioner had examined himself as PW.1 on 21.04.2010; the matter was posted to 29.04.2010 for his further evidence; his failure to adduce further evidence on 29.04.2010 was on account of his inability to attend the Court as he was on bandobust duty; and, since the burden of establishing the ingredients essential for grant of divorce is on the petitioner, his being denied reasonable opportunity of adducing evidence on his behalf would, undoubtedly, cause him grave and irretrievable prejudice. The O.P. is of the year 2008. Neither the counter affidavit of the respondent-wife nor the order of the Court below reflects the petitioner having sought adjournments on earlier occasions. For the absence of the petitioner on one particular day, it would be inappropriate for the Court below to close his evidence and, thereby, deny him an opportunity of adducing evidence in his defence. That irretrievable prejudice would be caused is evident from the fact that the onus of establishing the ingredients for grant of divorce is on the petitioner who seeks divorce and, if he is not permitted to let in evidence, it would result in substantial injustice to him. I consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to set aside the order of the Court below, and direct that the petitioner be given another opportunity to further examine himself, and any other witnesses on his behalf, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall pay Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only) to the respondent- wife within a period of three weeks from today; (ii) On proof of such payment, having been made to the respondent, being filed in the Court, the Court below shall permit the petitioner to further examine himself, and to adduce any further evidence on his behalf; (iii) In case the amount is not paid, or proof of payment is not filed, within the aforementioned period, the Court below shall proceed with the evidence of the respondent-wife and the petitioner-husband shall not, thereafter, be given any further opportunity of either further examining himself or examining any other witnesses on his behalf; and (iv) Even in case payment as aforementioned is made and, on proof thereof being filed into the Court, the petitioner shall further examine himself on the date fixed by the Court below, and his failure either to appear or further examine himself on that day would result in his foregoing his right either to examine himself or to examine any other witnesses on his behalf. The Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:23.09.2011 usd