Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Heard both the learned Counsels at length and perused the relevant provision of Order 5, Rule 9 to 19 and also perused the law cited by both the learned Counsel.

2. This revision petition is preferred against the order of District Judge, Ganganagar dated 1-10-86, by which he accepted the application of non-petitioner Mst. Guddi and set aside the ex parte decree dated 24-8-81.

3. The petitioner filed an application against non-petitioner for divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 16-3-1981. Notice was sent to the non-petitioner but she did not appear so an ex parte order was passed on 3-7-1981. Thereafter on 24-8-1981 ex parte decree for divorce was passed against the non-petitioner Mst. Guddi. Then Mst. Guddi submitted an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC on 10-5-1982 requesting that she had no knowledge about the notice of the divorce application and prayed that the ex parte decree, passed against her, be set aside. The application was accepted and the learned District Judge by the impugned order set aside the ex parte decree. Feeling aggrieved by this order the petitioner Shri Harjeet Singh has come to this Court in revision. The important point to be considered is whether Mst. Guddi was served with the notice of the application filed by petitioner for divorce. In this respect the statements of Mst. Guddi. her father Lal Singh, Process Server, Manphool and witness Lad u Ram in whose presence notice was affixed, are important statements. From reading the statements of all these witnesses and specially the statement of Process Server, it is clear that the notice was sent in the name of Mst. Guddi and she was not found at the address given in the notice. The notice was again sent and it was returned back that Mst. Guddi has gone to Punjab. Again the notice was sent and Mst. Guddi was not found then the notice was affixed on the house of Lal Singh where she was residing. Mst. Guddi, in her statement, has admitted that she was residing with her father Lal Singh at the address given in the application by the petitioner. She has stated that occasionally she used to go to Punjab. But by her statement, it is clear that she was residing permanently at Jhabar, Tehsil Hanuman Garh with her father. Lal Singh father of Mst. Guddi has stated that she resides in Punjab & occasionally comes to his house. Thus the statement of Lal Singh and Mst. Guddi are contradictory and there is no satisfactory proof that Mst. Guddi was permanently residing at that time in Punjab. The fact is clearly established that she was residing with her father Lal Singh in village Jhabar, Tehsil Hanuman Garh at which address the notice was sent. The witness in whose presence the notice was affixed has also corroborated the statement of process server and from his statement also, it is clear that notice was served by affixing it on the house of Lal Singh where Mst. Guddi was residing. After perusing the evidence on this aspect, I am satisfied that the notice was affixed at the house of Lal Singh where Mst. Guddi was residing. Therefore, there was complete compliance of Order 5, Rule 17. Notice was sent twice and Mst. Guddi was not found. All due and reasonable steps were taken but she was not found there and nobody informed that when Mst. Guddi will return from Punjab. So the notice was affixed on the house of Lal Singh where she was residing and, therefore, this was correctly treated as duly served.