High Court reviewed a civil revision petition challenging the confirmation of an ex-parte decree dissolving a marriage, which was originally set aside by the trial court. The Court found the respondent acted diligently and dismissed the revision.
Order dated 26.04.2013 in I.A.No.1314 of 2013 is confirmed; Civil Revision Petition No.1460 of 2014 dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.01.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMAINAM
C.R.P.(P.D.) No.1460 of 2014 and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
L.Veethus Durairaj ... Petitioner Vs. S.Sobia Dorathi ... Respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the petition and Order passed in I.A.No.1314 of 2013 in D.O.P.No.117 of 2012 on the file of the District Judge, Villupuram dated 12.12.2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ambigapathi For Respondent : Mr.R.Babu
O R D E R
The Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 26.04.2013 passed in I.A.No.1314 of 2013 in D.O.P.No.117 of 2012 on the file of the District Judge, Villupuram.
District Judge, Villupuram, seeking a decree of dissolution of marriage dated 26.01.1995 solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent. In the
2
said D.O.P, the exparte decree was passed by the trial Court on 06.04.2013. The respondent filed a petition dated 26.04.2013 to set aside the exparte order dated 06.04.2013 and the docket order of the trial Court states that :
"The petitioner counsel endorsed that the
counsel for respondent refused to take notice. Hence notice may be Ordered to
party".
3
main petition. Further she filed a counter, such being the case, she ought not to have allowed the trial Court to pass the order of exparte decree. The respondent was not diligent in conducting the case before the trial Court and therefore, the present civil revision petition is to be allowed.
petition by stating that on 06.04.2013, she was suffering from severe fever and she was under bed rest. Therefore, she was unable to contact her counsel on record and not proceeded with the case, which was posted on 06.04.2013. There was no intention on the part of the respondent to remain absent and due to the circumstances stated supra, she was absent and the trial Court passed the order of exparte decree. Subsequently, she filed a petition to set aside the exparte decree diligently without any further delay and therefore the counsel for the respondent urged this Court that she may be given an opportunity to adjudicate the matter on merits.
counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
mk
4
decided without complete adjudication. The complete adjudication alone will meet ends of the justice and the parties cannot simply walk with an exparte order and attempt to execute the same. The point to be considered is as to whether the parties are diligent enough to approach the Courts or not. In the case on hand, though the exparte decree was passed by the trial Court on 06.04.2013, the respondent filed the petition to set aside the same
in time. Further, she entered appearance in the case at the first instance and filed her counter affidavit also in time. Such being the conduct of the party, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the trial Court and accordingly, the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1314 of 2013 in D.O.P No.117 of 2012 dated 26.04.2013 is confirmed and the Civil Revision Petition No.1460 of 2014 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.01.2017
Index : Yes Internet : Yes mk To The District Judge, District Court, Villupuram.
C.R.P.(P.D.) No.1460 of 2014 http://www.judis.nic.in
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial Court's confirmation of a non-interim ex-parte decree setting aside for lack of service due to respondent's illness and promptly filed appeal.
L.Veethus Durairaj
S.Sobia Dorathi
S.M.Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
