Civil Revision No. 3191 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3191 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.5.2009 Tarsem Singh ..... Petitioner vs Harwinder Kaur ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Ms. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 9.4.2009 passed by the learned court below, whereby evidence of the petitioner was closed by order of the court. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondent, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but also the divorce petition as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the petitioner filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and after framing of issues on 19.3.2008, the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner on 2.6.2008 on which date two witnesses were examined. On the adjourned date i.e. 22.8.2008, as the petitioner was suffering from fever, he could not produce his evidence and the case was adjourned to 15.10.2008. On 2-3 occasions, the proceedings were not taken place due to the non- availability of the Presiding Officer. On 17.12.2008, the petitioner examined PW4 but his cross-examination was deferred on the request of counsel for the respondent. It was on 9.4.2009 that due to non-production of evidence, impugned order came to be passed. He prayed that in case one opportunity is granted, the petitioner will complete his entire evidence on the date fixed by the trial court. The facts submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are borne out from the record. It is not a case where the petitioner was not Civil Revision No. 3191 of 2009 (2) leading evidence. As is evident from the paper-book, out of 8 dates, on three occasions the Presiding Officer was not holding the court and on one date the case was adjourned on the request of counsel for the respondent and on 22.8.2008, the petitioner was suffering from fever. As such only, three effective opportunities were granted to the petitioner and he led his evidence on these dates. So it cannot be said that the petitioner was delaying the matter by seeking unnecessary adjournments. The trial is stated to be fixed for 11.6.2009 for evidence of the respondent. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, while setting aside the impugned order dated 9.4.2009, closing the evidence of the petitioner, the learned court below is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner for completing his evidence on the date already fixed before the evidence of the respondent/ defendant is recorded.. The same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the respondent. The petitioner shall be at liberty to get summons issued for any witness. It is, however, made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner in case he fails to complete the entire evidence on the date fixed. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. In case the respondent is aggrieved against the aforesaid order he shall be at liberty to file application for recalling or modification of the same. 28.5.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge