JUDGMENT : U.C. Maheshwari, J. 1. Although this matter is listed for admission and consideration of IA No. 15811/13, stay application but looking to the nature of the dispute involved in this petition instead to hear it only on the question of admission, with the consent of the parties, the same is taken for final disposal. The petitioners defendants, the wife and son of the respondent have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 31.10.2013, passed by the Family Court, Rewa in Civil Suit No. 46-A/2007, whereby their application filed to summon the witnesses mentioned in para 5 of such application to record their evidence in support of the petitioners has been dismissed. 2. The petitioners' counsel by referring the averments of the petition as well as impugned application argued his case. 3. Such prayer is opposed by the respondent's counsel saying that after extending the sufficient opportunity to adduce the evidence to the petitioners, when they did not examine such witnesses, then after closing the evidence, they are not entitled either to summon or examine any of the witnesses. 4. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on record alongwith the aforesaid application as well as impugned order. 5. It is undisputed fact that the impugned petition has been filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner No. 1 on the grounds available under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (in short "The Act"). In the WS of the petitioner, besides the other defence, it is also stated that during subsisting of marriage of the petitioner No. 1 with the respondent, the respondent has also got second marriage with some other or has kept her with him and enjoying the marital relations with her. 6. After closing the evidence of both the parties, the matter was fixed for final arguments. On such date the impugned application, (Ann. P-2) to examine the witnesses mentioned in para 5 of the same was filed but on consideration, considering the merits of such witnesses by holding that they are not necessary to examine in the matter, the application was dismissed. 7. On such date the impugned application, (Ann. P-2) to examine the witnesses mentioned in para 5 of the same was filed but on consideration, considering the merits of such witnesses by holding that they are not necessary to examine in the matter, the application was dismissed. 7. True it is that the aforesaid application was filed at very belated stage after closing the evidence of both the parties and at the stage of final hearing but looking to the case and the allegation made by the petitioners against the respondent, if she wants to examine the aforesaid witnesses who are near relatives of such another woman, with whom as alleged, the respondent is having the marital relations, then in matrimonial matter such opportunity should be extended to the parties because question of family life of the petitioner No. 1 is involved in the matter. Although various logics have been given by the trial court in the impugned order for dismissing such application alongwith the conduct of the counsel of the petitioner who had misbehaved before the court like an arrogant person, which is neither permissible nor tolerable. It appears that due to such conduct of the counsel the findings have gone against the petitioners in the impugned order because such counsel has submitted some versions in arrogant manner contrary to the interest of the petitioners before the trial court. 8. It is settled proposition of law that due to fault or mistake of the counsel, the litigation should not suffer as laid down by the Apex Court in matter of Rafiq and another Vs. Munshilal and another reported in, AIR 1981 SC 1400 . 9. In such premises, the impugned order requires reconsideration at this stage. 10. In view of aforesaid discussions, available record and the impugned order in order to extend one more opportunity to the petitioners to summon and examine the witnesses, mentioned in para 5 of Annexure P-2, this petition is allowed and it is directed that on submitting the PF of such witnesses in accordance with procedure within fifteen days from today in the trial court, such witnesses shall be summoned by the trial court by fixing a date within further fifteen days. 11. 11. The trial court shall be at liberty to take appropriate other steps to secure the presence of such witnesses and on their appearance, shall record their depositions or to pass appropriate order in that regard under the discretions of such court and thereafter shall proceed to decide the matter on merits. 12. The trial court is specifically directed that mere on the whims or request of the petitioners no adjournment shall be given in the matter unless sufficient cause is available. It is also made clear that if the witnesses come to the court, then they should not be returned back without examining them or without passing any appropriate order in that regard. 13. Till the aforesaid extent the impugned order is modified. The petition is allowed, as indicated above. Petition allowed.