Surinder Mittal vs Pooja Mittal on 18 December, 2012

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Surinder Mittal vs Pooja Mittal on 18 December, 2012

Bench: T.P.S.Mann

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                AT CHANDIGARH


                                                  CR 7626 of 2012
                             Date of Decision : December 18, 2012


Surinder Mittal

                                                     .....Petitioner

                               VERSUS

Pooja Mittal

                                                  .....Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN

Present :   Mr. Ashu Kaushik, Advocate

T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)

The petitioner-husband has filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar on 17.10.2012 whereby his defence to the application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') was struck off.

A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that instead of filing reply to the application under Section 24 of the Act, a request was made on behalf of the petitioner for adjournment. However, keeping in view the fact that the CR 7626 of 2012 -2- adjournment granted on the last date of hearing was subject to costs and with clear instructions that no further opportunity would be granted and despite the same no reply had been filed, the Court below did not accede to the request made by the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was earlier represented by a different counsel. On 3.10.2012 another counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner and filed his power of attorney. Said counsel then requested for an adjournment which was granted by describing it as last opportunity on payment of costs of Rs. 100/-. For reasons beyond his control, the counsel, who had started representing the petitioner, was not able to get the necessary reply drafted/prepared and it was for that reason alone that while appearing before the lower Court on 17.10.2012 he requested for one more opportunity for filing reply. It has been submitted that in case another opportunity is granted, the petitioner shall file reply to the application under Section 24 of the Act and he is also ready to compensate the respondent-wife for not filing the reply earlier.

Without going into the stand taken by the counsel for the petitioner but keeping in view the interest of justice, this Court is of the considered view that one more opportunity is required to be granted to the petitioner-husband to file reply to the application under Section 24 of the Act.

CR 7626 of 2012 -3-

Resultantly, the revision is disposed of with a direction to the lower Court to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner- husband to file reply to the application under Section 24 of the Act subject to costs of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to the respondent-wife. The necessary reply shall be filed within two weeks from today.




                                               ( T.P.S. MANN )
December 18, 2012                                   JUDGE
ajay-1

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court