Krishan vs Santra Devi And Others on 14 September, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Krishan vs Santra Devi And Others on 14 September, 2012

Bench: T.P.S. Mann

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
              AT CHANDIGARH

                                Civil Revision No. 5398 of 2012
                            Date of Decision : September 14, 2012

Krishan
                                                           ....Petitioner
                               Versus
Santra Devi and others

                                                    .....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

Present :   Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Advocate

T.P.S. Mann, J. (Oral)

Order passed by the Additional District Judge, Panipat on 20.12.2011 has been challenged by the petitioner by filing the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') for dissolution of his marriage with respondent-Santra Devi.

A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the petitioner despite availing numerous opportunities (9 in number) has not produced any evidence. Even he himself had not been appearing in order to step into the witness box. Under these circumstances, the trial Court was left with no other option but to resort to the provisions of Order XVII Rule 3 C.P.C. and closed his defence, followed by dismissal of the petition filed under Section 13 of the Act.

The only ground taken by the petitioner for challenging Civil Revision No. 5398 of 2012 -2- the impugned order is that he has a prima facie good case in his favour and, therefore, the petition filed by him under Section 13 of the Act is likely to be decreed. That ground will not be sufficient to grant any further opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that after the issues were framed on 19.5.2010, the case was fixed for 1.6.2010 and, thereafter, on 16.7.2010 for evidence of the petitioner but no evidence was led by him. He then filed an application for conducting DNA test of respondents No.1 and 3. The said application was accepted and after the receipt of the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban case was fixed for recording of his evidence for 7.3.2011. On that day, no evidence of the petitioner was present. On the adjourned date, i.e. 14.3.2011, the petitioner was present but his testimony could not be recorded because of non availability of the counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was discharged. Thereafter, he was granted six more opportunities for leading evidence but failed to produce any of his witnesses. Rather, he, once again, applied for conducting fresh DNA test, which request of his was declined on 3.10.2011.

Once the petitioner had failed to examine any evidence despite availing numerous opportunities, the trial Court was justified in taking resort to the provisions of Order XVII Rule 3 C.P.C. by closing his evidence and dismissing the petition filed by him.

In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.




                                               ( T.P.S. MANN )
September 14, 2012                                   JUDGE
satish

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court