..^^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATrESSARH AT 8ILASPUR M(M) No. 44/2010 APPELLANT Non appiicQnt VERSUS RESPONDENT Smt, Savita Salgotra, wife of Vivek Salgotra aged about 30 years, R/o EWS 414, Vaishaili Nagar, BhiEai District Durg (CS) Vivek Salgotra, son of late Shri ^.D.Salgotra, OQed about 35 years, R/o House No. 2947, Sant Na9ar, Rani Bagh, Shakur Basti, P.S. Ashok Vihar, Delhi 110 034. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1984 Appearance: Shri H.B. Agrawai, Sr. Advocate with 5mt. Itu Rcuii Mukharjee, counset for the appellant. Division Bench:- Hon'bi®Shri T.P. Sharma & Hon'bi®Shri R.L.Jhanwar.JJ ORAL ORDER (05.08.2010) Per T.P.Sharma. J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 29.9.2009, passed by tiie 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, in C.S.No. 58A/09, whereby, the learned Additional •:"Y A. '^ ^y ^^w^^ Principal Judge, Durg has set aside the order of dismissal of the suit, passed on the ground that respondent has specifically claimed the date, 14.10.2008 and 15.10.2008 and submits that if it is not possible for the Court to give aforesaid dates then the Court may dismiss the petition. 2, An application for restoration was filed by the respondent and after hearing the parties, Court below has restored Civil Suit No. 59A/2008 vide order dated 22.9.2009. 3. We have heard Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Sr. Advocate for the appetlant. He submits that even on the date of passing of such order i.e. 29.9.2009, the respondent was not present, therefore, Coyrt below has allowed the application dnd restored the Suit, 4. Order impugned and record of the Court below perused, 5* The suit WGS dismissed on the ground that respondent has prayed for fixed date of 14.10.2008 or 15.10.2008 and has also submitted that if the aforesaid dates are not possible then his suit may be dismissed, 6. This is a family matter. Court is required to take sympathetic view considering the difficulties of the parties. In case, aforesaid two dates were not possible, then the Court was required to adjourn the case for another suitabte date instead of dismissing the suit. However, instead of adjourning the case, Court had dismissed the suit, which was finally restored by setting aside the aforesaid order of dismissal. Therefore, Court below has not committed any illegaiity, .„_,••) ^^ ^"':- ^ 1 ^.^.^."'-.-^.. ^ §y^^ 7. In our view, the appeal is devoid of merits. The same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. No order as to costs. -—— -- Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge