IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1434 of 2009 Date of decision: 17.3.2009 Amarjit Singh ......Petitioner Versus Sarabjit Kaur and another ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner filed a divorce petition for dissolution of marriage against respondent No.1 under Section 13(1)(i) and (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty and that she is living in adultery with respondent No.2. In the aforesaid petition, respondent No.2 was not served since the filing of divorce petition i.e. 7.8.2007. The petitioner was directed to furnish correct address of respondent No.2 as well as registered envelop but the petitioner failed to furnish the necessary requisites. On 7.5.2008, the case was adjourned to 18.8.2008 for service upon respondent No.2 and last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to furnish necessary requisites. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the order and another opportunity was granted to the petitioner to do the needful and the case was adjourned to 5.11.2008. However, the petitioner failed to furnish correct address as well registered envelop for service upon respondent No.2. In view of the aforesaid facts, further adjournment as requested by the petitioner was declined and the petition qua respondent No.2 was ordered to be dismissed for non compliance with the orders of the Court. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the CR No.1434 of 2009 -2- petitioner has argued that in the interest of justice the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner should be given one more opportunity to serve respondent No.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Even before this Court, the petitioner is not ready to furnish the correct address of respondent No.2. Thus, in these circumstances, it will be of no use to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to serve the respondent. Thus, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. March 17, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE