The Court allowed a civil revision petition setting aside an order by which the lower Court condoned a delay of 366 days in filing a petition to set aside an ex parte divorce decree without recording sufficient cause for the delay.
The order of 23.11.2017 in IA No.87 of 2016 is set aside; pending miscellaneous petitions to be closed.
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.
SMT JUSTI CE T. RAJANI
CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON No.1 4 1 0 of 2 0 1 8
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.2017 in IA.No.87 of 2016 in OP.No.1 of 2014, by virtue of which the Court below condoned the delay of 366 days in preferring the petition, which was filed seeking to set aside the ex parte decree of divorce.
2
Supreme Court in PARI MAL v . VEENA1 wherein it was observed that Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code makes it obligatory for the Court not to interfere with an ex parte decree unless it meets the statutory requirement. It was also observed that the issue of service of summons or whether there was sufficient cause for wife not to appear before the Court has to be dealt with and finding to be recorded. The other decision relied upon by the counsel is rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in LOKESHW ARI v . SRI NI VASA RAO2 is also to the same effect. Further, the counsel contends that there was a customary divorce and after the said customary divorce and the decree of the Court, the petitioner got married.
Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________ T. RAJANI, J
August 24, 2018 DSK
1 (2011) 3 SCC 545
2 2000 LAW SUIT (AP) 75
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order below condoning a delay of 366 days without recording sufficient cause needs to be set aside.
Whether the lower Court complied with statutory requirements under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC before condoning the delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
PARI MAL v . VEENARelied on¶9
(2011) 3 SCC 545 · Who else cites this
LOKESHW ARI v . SRI NI VASA RAOReferred¶9
2000 LAW SUIT (AP) 75
1 provisions across 1 enactments
JUSTICE T. RAJANI
Respondent
T. RAJANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
