Short Note 1. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 2.7.1999 in Matrimonial Case No. 52A/1996 filed by the petitioner/appellant under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereafter referred to as the' Act' for short), praying for a decree of divorce. 2. The essential facts, leading to the present appeal, are that the petitioner-appellant is the husband of the defendant-respondent. The plaintiff-husband filed a petition under section 13 of the Act praying for a decree for dissolution of marriage and divorce. During the pendency of the said application, a petition under section 13 B of the Act was filed praying for decree for divorce by consent. The case was fixed for consideration of the application on 1.7.1999 and thereafter it was adjourned for 2.7.1999 for consideration of the said application for consent -decree under section 13B of the 'Act' and also for recording evidence in case the compromise decree was not granted. The appellant-husband on 2.7.1999 expressed that he was not willing for a consent decree and hence the said application under section 13B of the Act was dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant prayed for an adjournment for adducing evidence regarding the petition originally filed by him under section 13 of the 'Act'. The learned trial Court disallowed the prayer as above and dismissed the said application, proceeding under Order 17 Rule 3, CPC. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned-order has been passed in great haste without affording the parties due opportunity to represent their case under section 13 of the 'Act' and adequate opportunity for adducing evidence has not been granted to him. It has been submitted that on 2.7.1999 when the impugned-order was passed, the matter essentially for consideration before the trial Court was the petition under section 138 of the 'Act'. Since the petitioner-plaintiff was not willing for consent decree, and his witnesses were not ready on that date, he should have been afforded at least one opportunity to produce his witnesses. 4. The contention as above appears to be justified and deserves to be accepted. It appears that the plaintiff-petitioner was not afforded due opportunity to adduce evidence. Miscarriage of justice has been caused on account of the dismissal of his petition by the impugned-order. 4. The contention as above appears to be justified and deserves to be accepted. It appears that the plaintiff-petitioner was not afforded due opportunity to adduce evidence. Miscarriage of justice has been caused on account of the dismissal of his petition by the impugned-order. However, the learned counsel for the respondent/wife submitted that as the petition of the petitioner-husband had been dismissed, he was required to file an application for divorce under section 13 of the 'Act'. It has been submitted by the respondent's counsel that in any case laches on the part of the plaintiff were evident; inasmuch as, he failed to keep his witnesses present on 2.7.1999 when the case was fixed for evidence. 5. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed. The impugned-order is set-aside and the petition filed by the petitioner-husband under section 13 of the 'Act' shall stand restored, subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the respondent/wife payable within one month of this order. The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 24.8.2000 for partaking in the proceedings of the case without any further notice.