KHEM SINGH Vs. CHIRANJIV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chiranjiv Singh-Respondent filed a petition seeking custody of minor Harmit Singh @ Samar. Vide the impugned order the evidence of the petitioner was closed. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only maternal grand mother of the minor was to be examined by the petitioner and one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to conclude his evidence.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. Although four effective opportunities were granted to the Civil Revision No.7083 of 2009 2 petitioner to conclude his evidence yet he had failed to do so but in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to allow one more opportunity to the petitioner to conclude his evidence at his own risk and responsibility. The respondent had concluded his evidence on 26.8.2009. Apparently, the case of the petitioner had been fixed for his evidence by giving him short adjournment. In case the petitioner is allowed to lead his entire evidence, the lis between the parties will be disposed of on merits. Moreover, the other side can be compensated with costs.