Kuldip Kaur vs Gurdeep Singh on 13 August, 1993
2 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2017 21:05:48 :::
CR No. 7419 of 2013 (O&M) . -3-
The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the suit had
been filed by the father-in-law of the petitioner and his (petitioner)
relation with his wife were not good and the summons were intentionally
sent at the Gurgaon address whereas he was a resident of Bhopal and the
photocopy of the A.D. Card would show that service was sought to be
effected at Gurgaon and the A.D. Card does not bear his signatures and
he was proceeded ex parte. It was urged that the petitioner came to know
of the pendency of the petition when he received summons from the High
Court as the stay application filed by the plaintiff had been dismissed and
they had approached the High Court in a revision and it was in August
2012 that he came to know of the case. The counsel further submitted
that the father of the petitioner had died and his mother also died later on.
The counsel had also referred to the Order 9 Rule 6 of CPC and to the
High Court Rules & Orders, specifically to Chapter 1(k) Rule 4 and it
was urged that when the Court was closed on a date fixed for hearing
then the ex parte proceedings could not have been taken out against him
and petitioner be permitted to join the proceedings and file the written
statement. Reliance was placed upon Ram Pal and others Vs. Jagrup
Singh and others 1987 PLJ 355, Kuldip Kaur Vs. Gurdeep Singh
1993(3) RRR 696 and Tara Chand and another Vs. Kabul Chand and
others 1964(2) ILR (Punjab) 880.