IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.167 of 2010 Date of Decision: 25.5.2010 Gurpartap Singh Sidhu. ....... Petitioner through Shri Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Shri Vijay Pal, Advocate. Versus Rupinder Mann. ....... Respondent through Shri S.D.Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms.Bindu Goel, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This civil revision is directed against order dated 28.11.2009 of the District Judge, Chandigarh ( hereinafter described as `the trial Court') by which additional evidence sought to be produced by the petitioner was declined. The respondent filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short, `the Act') by averring that she was marred to the petitioner on 30.12.2001 and that material facts had been concealed C.R.No.167 of 2010 -2- .... from her regarding his educational qualification, as also that he had retinal detachment which fact was also concealed and the marriage being result of fraud, was sought to be annulled. The petition is being contested by the petitioner. During the course of proceedings, an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the C.P.C. was filed by the petitioner seeking to adduce two pieces of evidence. He wanted to produce the copy of a statement of Col.Sukhdev Singh Mann, father of the respondent, which was recorded in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mohali on 19.,9.,2009 wherein he had admitted the photographs which had been placed on the court file. It was pleaded that since the statement was recorded after the conclusion of his evidence, the statement be permitted to be brought on record as the same obviously could not be produced since such statement and proceedings took place after conclusion of his evidence. The second prayer made in the application was that he be permitted to adduce the certified copies of the affidavit of consent as well as `waiver of notice' filed by the respondent in the proceedings which were pending in the United States of America which bore her signatures and that he be also allowed to examine Shri Kranti Kumar, handwriting expert for comparison of such signatures of the respondent. This application having been declined, has resulted in the filing of the instant petition in which learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that these two pieces of evidence were necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter. It is his contention that pursuant to the petition C.R.No.167 of 2010 -3- .... for divorce having been filed by the petitioner in a Court in United States of America, the respondent had given her affidavit as well as a waiver of notice in order to accept the proceedings for divorce. He, thus, contended that this goes to the very root of the matter and was an essential piece of evidence which needed to be brought on record. Learned counsel for the respondent has strenuously opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has contended that he has no objection if the copy of the statement of Col. Sukhdev Singh Mann is permitted to be brought on record for the reason that this was recorded subsequent to the conclusion of the petitioner, but in no circumstance, the second piece of evidence can be permitted to be brought on record because this fact was known to him all throughout and it is not his case that he could not produce it for some reasons which were beyond his control. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have perused the impugned order. The parties are litigating in the backdrop of a marital discord. The respondent wants annulment of the marriage while the petitioner, who is contesting these proceedings, had, at the same time, sought divorce in the Court in United States of America. The affidavit of consent as well as waiver of notice, if at all, furnished by the respondent in the Court in United States of America are likely to have sufficient bearing on the outcome of the case. Such a piece of evidence could not have been shut out by the trial Court, more-so when the proceedings which are emanating from as marital dispute, are not to be made hostage to the strict and narrow interpretation of C.R.No.167 of 2010 -4- .... the provisions of law. In such like cases, the Court ought to give a liberal interpretation to the procedure of law so that the parties, who are litigating, are enabled to obtain substantial justice, more-so when procedural laws are merely handmaiden of justice to be used to enhance justice. The grievance of the petitioner has been partly addressed by the concession of the learned counsel for the respondent, who has not objected to the production of the statement of Col.Sukhdev Singh Mann. In such an eventuality, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be squarely met if the present petition is allowed. Ordered accordingly. The impugned order is set aside for the reasons which have been stated above, as also for the considered opinion of the Court, production of such evidence which has been referred to in the application and declined by the trial Court, is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. May ,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge