C.R.No.2122 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.2122 of 2010 Date of decision: 20.4.2010 Jatinder Sharma .....Petitioner vs. Sarita Rani ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Ms.Jatinderjit Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) C.M.No.9689-CII of 2010 C.M is allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.R.No.2122 of 2010 By way of this petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 17.2.2010 whereby evidence of the petitioner in an application filed by him under Order IX rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the ex parte judgment dated 12.3.2008 passed against him, was closed by order of the Court. As per the averments made in this petition, an ex parte decree of divorce was passed against the petitioner on 12.3.2008. Petitioner filed an application under Order IX rule 13 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside ex parte decree of divorce dated 12.3.2008. Issues were framed in the aforesaid case on 16.7.2008 and the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner for 8.9.2008. As per the zimni C.R.No.2122 of 2010 (O&M) 2 orders produced on record by the petitioner, on five consecutive dates i.e. 8.9.2008, 24.10.2008, 15.12.2008, 11.2.2009 and 26.2.2009, no evidence was produced on behalf of the petitioner and thereafter the case was adjourned to 20.3.2009 for brining evidence at his own risk and responsibility. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was taken in judicial custody in other proceedings and, therefore, an application was moved on 20.3.2009 for issuance of production warrants of the petitioner for completing his evidence which were issued for 16.4.2009. However, the petitioner was not produced on 16.4.2009 and thereafter on 5.5.2009, 26.5.2009 and on 16.7.2009. On 16.7.2009 after noticing the fact that the petitioner was released on bail the trial Court directed him to conclude his evidence on the next date of hearing i.e. on 30.7.2009. On 30.7.2009, the petitioner tendered his affidavit in examination-in-chief and the case was adjourned to 25.8.2009 for his cross-examination and for producing remaining evidence. Thereafter, no evidence of the petitioner was present on 25.8.2009, 8.9.2009, 30.9.2009, 12.8.2009, 16.11.2009, 11.1.2010, 15.2.2010 and 17.2.2010 i.e. the date of impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the defence of the petitioner cannot be shut out merely on the basis of technicalities and the petitioner is entitled to one more opportunity for completing his evidence. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the various zimni orders. I find that sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner to complete his evidence, as noticed above. However, the petitioner miserably failed to complete his evidence. It is well settled that no one can take advantage of his own wrong. Thus, in the circumstances C.R.No.2122 of 2010 (O&M) 3 enumerated above, the petitioner who has already been granted sufficient opportunities, cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. Thus, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge April 20, 2010 rk