S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS civil revision arises out of an order refusing the petitioner to adduce evidence in this case in view of an earlier order of this Court in Civil Revision No. 1 of 1989 which reads as follows :-"mr. Mukherjee for the petitioner says that in case the petitioner in the trial court has no evidence to lead, from the side of the respondent who is the petitioner in this Civil Revision, no evidence would be led. In that view of the matter, the trial court may proceed to dispose of the proceeding without any evidence from the parties. Counsel for the petitioner appearing in this proceeding agrees that this should be the position. Accordingly, due notice be taken of agreement recorded in the order and the proceeding be disposed of in accordance with law. " ( 2 ) THIS is a proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce. During the trial, the petitioner who was the appellant filed an application that the respondent wife having alleged that the petitioner lives in adultery, is to lead evidence first. Trial Court allowed the said petition. Against the said order, Civil Revision No. 1 of 1982 was filed by the wife respondent in which the aforesaid order has been passed. Basing on the said order, the trial court has passed the impugned order not permitting the petitioner to adduce evidence when he sought for the same. ( 3 ) IN spite of the service being held to be sufficient, wife respondent has not entered appearance. Mr. Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order itself would indicate that the petitioner never stated either in the trial Court or in the High Court that he would not adduce evidence. His application that the respondent wife should adduce evidence first having been allowed, the matter was carried in civil revision where this Court held that in case the petitioner has no evidence to lead, the respondent would also lead no evidence. In the circumstances, it would be held that the trial Court may proceed to dispose of the proceeding without any evidence from the parties. It is true that the learned counsel for the petitioner agreed that the same would be the position. In the circumstances, it would be held that the trial Court may proceed to dispose of the proceeding without any evidence from the parties. It is true that the learned counsel for the petitioner agreed that the same would be the position. However, once the petitioner comes forward to adduce evidence, interest of justice demands that the proceeding should be completed after contest and is not to be closed by these technicalities. ( 4 ) THE petitioner after initiating the proceeding for divorce has dragged on the proceeding till date by filing an application that the respondent should adduce evidence first. His Lawyer in the earlier civil revision also accepted the position that the case would be decided without any evidence when he wants to get rid of this situation, by getting a chance to adduce evidence, the respondent wife would be prejudiced who has been attending the Court from the year 1978 till date for about nine years. This prejudice of the respondent however, can be mitigated in case the petitioner is directed to pay a cost of Rs. 750/- to the respondent. On payment of Rs. 750/- within six weeks from today, the petitioner shall be permitted to adduce evidence in the matter and thereafter, the respondent shall also get chance to adduce evidence. ( 5 ) IN the result, the civil revision is allowed subject to the foresaid condition. There shall be no order as to costs in this civil revision. Revision allowed. .