Civil Revision No. 7980 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7980 of 2011 Date of decision. 22.12.2011 Dalwinder Singh .... Petitioner Versus Manjeet Kaur and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. The petitioner before me is the husband, who has brought proceedings under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against his wife and another person claiming him to be having illicit relations with respondent no.1. The petitioner has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 21.11.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Amritsar(for short 'the trial court') vide which his evidence has been closed. Civil Revision No. 7980 of 2011 --2-- On the failure of the petitioner to bring his evidence despite the opportunity for the purpose being the last opportunity, learned trial court has closed the evidence of the petitioner. Learned trial court has mentioned in the order under challenge that no request has been made for grant of further opportunity for petitioner's evidence. I have heard Mr. Ranjit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. I proceed to decide this revision petition without giving notice to the other party because that would save the other party from unnecessary loss of time and money in coming to this court. However, the respondents may file an application for reviewing this decision if they felt aggrieved thereby. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned trial court has been wrong in observing that no request has been made on behalf of the petitioner for his evidence for another opportunity. He has submitted that the petitioner himself is left to be examined. He has submitted that the petitioner could not appear on 21.11.2011 on account of there being a marriage in the family on that day. He has ,therefore, prayed for one opportunity to the petitioner for his appearance as his own witness. The petitioner may have availed a number opportunities and the opportunity for 21.11.2011 may have been the last opportunity, yet the petitioner himself had yet to appear as his own witness. Appearance of the party himself in the witness box is very much necessary because Civil Revision No. 7980 of 2011 --3-- non-appearance would invite adverse inferences. It cannot be believed that the petitioner had deliberately failed to appear in the witness box on 21.11.201. However, even if it was so further opportunity could be granted to the petitioner for his evidence subject to payment of costs. Though no fault could be found with the impugned order, yet I believe that the interest of justice would be better served if one more opportunity subject to payment of costs is granted to the petitioner for his appearance as his own witness. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs.5000/-as costs and setting aside the impugned order, learned trial court is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner for his appearance as his own witness. 22.12.2011 ( Vijender Singh Malik ) dinesh Judge