IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 280 of 2011 Date of decision: 13.10.2011 Amit Kumar …Petitioner. Versus Meera Devi …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10th June, 2011, passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu, whereby he closed the evidence of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the husband). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the wife) filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by grant of a decree of divorce against the husband and after her evidence was closed, more than three opportunities were given to the husband to lead evidence, but since he did not produce his evidence, the same was closed by order of the Court on 10th June, 2011. Hence, the present petition. 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2 :- 3. Mr. Palsra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the husband was in jail undergoing sentence in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and, therefore, could not produce his entire evidence. The husband was released from jail prior to the closure of the evidence, but keeping in view the fact that as he was in jail earlier and was not able to contact his witnesses and could not produce his evidence, I feel that interest of justice shall be served in case one opportunity is granted to the husband to produce his entire evidence at his own responsibility. 4. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the husband is given one opportunity to produce his entire evidence before the learned District Judge. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Kullu, on 17th November, 2011, and the learned District Judge will give one date in the month of December, 2011 to the petitioner-husband to produce his entire evidence. The petitioner may take assistance of the Court, but it shall be his responsibility to serve and produce his witnesses. This opportunity is granted subject to payment of ` 2500/- as costs to be paid to the respondent-wife on or before 17th November, 2011. In case, costs are not paid, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. (Deepak Gupta) Judge October 13, 2011 (rajni)