Dismissed

Shallie Mahajan v. Arun Mahajan and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 May 2016CR/3374/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to implead the petitioner as a necessary party in ancillary proceedings. The court held the petitioner was not a necessary party to the specific application regarding setting aside an ex parte decree.

What did the court decide?

The petition under Article 227 was dismissed in limine for being without merit.

Shallie Mahajan Vs Arun Mahajan and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶2

Civil Revision No. 3374 of 2016

¶3

Date of Decision: 12.05.2016

Shallie Mahajan

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Arun Mahajan and Another

¶8

... Respondent(s)

¶9

CORAM:	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shekher Dhawan.
1.	Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?	Yes
2	To be referred to reporters or not?
3	Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?	Yes
Present:	Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶10

Shekher Dhawan, J.

¶11

Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 16.4.2016, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for impleadment of applicant/petitioner-Shallie Mahajan as party to the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, was dismissed.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that present petitioner is necessary and proper party to be impleaded in the proceedings in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, filed by

¶13

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2016.05.16 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

Civil Revision No. 3374 of 2016

¶15

¶16

respondent No.2-Vidhi Mahajan alias Ria Mahajan. But the Court below has completely ignored the fact that the petitioner is a necessary party. The said application was filed by respondent No.2-Vidhi Mahajan alias Ria Mahajan when she came to know about solemnization of present petitioner with respondent No.1-Arun Mahajan and just to harass the petitioner and to disturb the newly wedded wife of the petitioner, application under order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed for setting aside ex parte judgment & decree dated 30.3.2011. That way, petitioner is aggrieved, necessary, proper and effective party and outcome of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC shall effect the rights and status of the petitioner. But the Court below dismissed the application without any justified reasons and prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

¶17

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the record of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the Court below has already considered this aspect and rightly decided the controversy that petitioner being second wife of respondent No.1-Arun Mahajan is not a necessary party for the purpose of decision of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The Court below has also rightly observed that rights and status of the petitioner may be in dispute in the main petition, but her rights and status is not likely to have any direct bearing on the decision of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. On that ground prayer for impleadment of petitioner as party to the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was rightly declined.

¶18

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2016.05.16 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

Civil Revision No. 3374 of 2016

¶20

¶21

Resultantly, present petition is without any merit and the

¶22

same stands dismissed, in limine.

¶23

(Shekher Dhawan) Judge

¶24

May 12, 2016 “DK”

¶25

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2016.05.16 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Shallie Mahajan v. Arun Mahajan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shallie Mahajan v. Arun Mahajan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balram Vs Jitender Singh Chauhan

Surja Devi and Ors. Vs Bimla Devi and Ors.

Tek Chand and Anr. Vs Chanderwati

Surinder Kumar Vs Parma Devi and Others

Sandeep Sobti Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Anr.

Shri Chand Since Deceased Thru Lrs. Ganga Dan Thru Lrs Man Singh and Ors. Vs Girraj Minor through His Mother Shyamwati