Ram Chand Gupta, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 17.1.2011, Annexure P15, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, vide which evidence of petitioner has been closed.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that though some opportunities were taken by the petitioner to lead evidence and, however, the evidence could not be concluded as respondent -husband was not regular in making payment of maintenance pendente lite. It has also been contended that the case was fixed for evidence of petitioner -respondent for 10.1.2011, when two applications, Annexures P9 and P10 were moved on behalf of the petitioner and the case was adjourned for filing reply to the said applications as well as for evidence of the respondent -petitioner and, however, on 17.1.2011, evidence of petitioner was closed by learned trial Court without deciding the said applications. It has further been contended that if the said applications are allowed, then there may not be any need for the petitioner to lead evidence.
(3.) THE fact that applications, Annexures P9 and P10 are pending has not been disputed by counsel for the respondent. He has also stated that he has already filed reply to the said applications on 17.1.2011. However, the same were not decided by learned trial Court before passing the impugned order closing evidence of the petitioner. It has further been contended that respondent is having no objection if petitioner is granted liberty to lead evidence by setting aside the impugned order and, however, as the main petition is pending since the year 2007, learned trial Court be directed to dispose of the same in a time bound manner.;