Disposed

Atul Goyal v. Shinam Goel @ Shinam Modi

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Aug 2016CR/5295/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition sought directions to the District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, to issue a formal judgment and draw a decree under Order 20 Rule 8 CPC regarding a divorce petition. The High Court held the interim order was insufficient and directed the District Judge to complete the decree within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the District Judge to pass a judgment and draw a decree within one month.

Atul Goyal Vs Shinam Goel @ Shinam… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

CR No.5295 of 2016

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No.5295 of 2016 Date of decision:22.08.2016

Atul Goyal

... Petitioner

Vs.

Shinam Goel @ Shinam Modi ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

Present:Mr. Harsh Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

¶12

Prayer in the present petition is for issuing appropriate directions to the Court below, i.e., District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib to write a judgment and draw decree in pursuance of the provisions of Order 20 Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) as divorce petition bearing No.68 of 2011 was filed under the provisions of Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act and the Court below had passed the following order on 04.02.2012 which reads thus:-

¶13

“Statements of both the petitioners have been recorded. Heard. Vide separate judgment of even date, the petition has been accepted. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Today during the proceedings of the case, the petitioner no.2 Atul Goel, handed over Special FDs for an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (thirty lacs) in the name of Geshna, i.e., the minor daughter of the parties, to petitioner no.1 Shinam Goel.

¶14

Savita 2016.08.24 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶15

CR No.5295 of 2016

¶16

{2}

¶17

Photostat copies of the said Special FDs have also been filed in this Court. An apprehension has been expressed by petitioner no.1 that on account of omission of name of either of the parents of the minor child Geshna in the Special FDs, there may be difficulty in encashment of the said Special FDs at a later stage and thus a prayer of issuing appropriate directions have been made.

¶18

I have considered the aforesaid request. In order to ensure that no difficulty is faced by Geshna for encashment of the Special FDs, a direction is hereby issued to the Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank to incorporate the name of mother of Geshna as her guardian in the necessary records pertaining to the aforesaid Special FDs so that no difficulty is faced at the time of encashment of the Special FDs and there is no ambiguity regarding identification of Geshna at later stage. A copy of this order be sent to Bank Concerned with the direction to do the needful as directed above. It is further directed that the aforesaid FDs shall not be encashed before the stipulated date i.e., before 20.1.2029, without permission of this Court. The petition stands accepted in the above mentioned terms. File be consigned to the record room.”

¶19

Mr. Harsh Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on inspection of the record, it is found that in view of the aforementioned order, neither the order has been passed nor the decree

¶20

Savita 2016.08.24 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶21

CR No.5295 of 2016

¶22

{3}

¶23

has been drawn and only interim order dated 04.02.2012 has been passed.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper book and of the view that the aforementioned order is not sufficient compliance of the provisions of Order 20 Rule 8 CPC. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the District Judge to pass a judgment and draw a decree pursuant to order dated 04.02.2012 as per law preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶25

With the aforementioned direction, revision petition stands disposed of.

¶26

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE August 22, 2016 savita Wheather speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶27

Savita 2016.08.24 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Atul Goyal v. Shinam Goel @ Shinam Modi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Goyal v. Shinam Goel @ Shinam Modi

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

Ram Chander Vs S.D.O (O.P) City & Ors.

Charan Singh Vs Sahib Ram Sehrawat and Ors.

Divya Yog Mandir Vs Chandigarh Yog Sabha and Ors.

Sunny Chawla Vs Chandni

Gaurav Verma Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors.

Anoop Vs Maha Singh and Ors.