Civil Revision No.5361 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5361 of 2007 Date of Decision:13.07.2009 Rajinder Singh son of Karam Singh .....Petitioner versus Harpal Kaur wife of Rajinder Singh, daughter of Teja Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Ms.Jatinder Jit Kaur, Advocate, with Rajinder Singh-petitioner in person. Mr.Vikas Bahl, Advocate, with Harpal Kaur-respondent in person. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral) In this revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the husband-petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 26.09.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional District Judge, Nawanshahr, whereby an application filed by the respondent-wife under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree of divorce dated 18.03.2002 passed in favour of the petitioner-husband was allowed and the ex parte decree of divorce dated 18.03.2002 passed in favour of the petitioner was set aside. Notice of motion was issued in this petition on November 02, 2007 to the respondent. During the pendency of the petition in this Court, the parties to the litigation had arrived at a compromise on 14.05.2009 and statements of Rajinder Singh(petitioner) son of Karam Singh and Harpal Kaur Civil Revision No.5361 of 2007 2 (respondent) daughter of Teja Singh, to that effect were recorded in the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of the aforesaid compromise, out of the settled amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the wife before the Sub-Registrar, Banga, for payment of the registration charges in respect of the house to be transferred in her and her son's favour, and the balance sum of Rs.2,50,000/- has been paid in cash today to the respondent-wife in the Court. She further states that in terms of the compromise, the residential house has also been transferred in equal shares in the names of the wife and the son. It has further been agreed between the parties that both the parties shall withdraw all the litigation which is stated to be pending inter se before the Courts below. Learned counsel for the respondent has acknowledged the correctness of the aforesaid facts. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the parties have parted their ways, the order dated 26.09.2007 impugned in the present revision petition be set aside and the ex parte decree of divorce granted on 18.03.2002 be upheld. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the aforesaid prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 26.09.2007 is set aside and the ex parte judgment and decree dated 18.03.2002 whereby the marriage of the parties was dissolved is hereby affirmed. The parties shall remain bound by the terms mentioned in the compromise and the statements made before the Court. Disposed of in the above terms. July 13, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) seema JUDGE