IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.67 of 2025 Decided on: 01.05.2025 Ashish Gupta ….Petitioner Versus Khushbu & another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) The instant petition has been filed assailing the order dated 20.12.2024, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge- II, Family Court, Una, whereby the evidence of the petitioner herein has been ordered to be closed by order of the Court. 2. The record reveals that the petitioner had taken steps for service of his witness i.e. the Record Keeper of the office of District Magistrate, Houz-Khas, South Delhi along with certain records. Summons were issued to the witness, however, an endorsement was made by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Houz-Khas on the summons with a prayer to exempt the witness from appearance in person before the Court and to examine the said 2 witness through Video Conferencing. In this view of the matter, the petitioner herein could not be faulted for non production of the witness. 3. The petitioner has taken due steps but the witness could not be produced for the reason beyond his control. Thus, the impugned order is harsh and deserves to be set aside. 4. On 30th April, 2025, the following order was passed: “Learned counsel for the respondents, under instructions, has submitted that the respondents will have no objection in case the witness i.e. official from the office of District Magistrate, Hauz-Khas, South Delhi is examined on commission. He further submits that for such purpose, the respondents are ready to bear half of the expenses. Confronted with this, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a day’s time to have instructions.” 5. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, on instructions, that the petitioner is not averse to the examination of the witness i.e. Record Keeper of the office of District Magistrate, Hauz-Khas, South Delhi on commission as proposed by learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Order dated 20.12.2024, passed by Additional Principal Judge-II, Family Court, Una is set aside. Learned Additional Principal Judge-II, 3 Family Court, Una, is directed to appoint a commission for examination of the witness, as detailed above on such terms as may be deemed reasonable. As agreed by the parties, the expenses for such commission shall be borne by both sides in equal share. 7. The parties are directed to appear before Additional Principal Judge-II, Family Court, Una, on 21st May, 2025. 8. Petition is accordingly disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge May 01, 2025 (vt)