C.M.No.10140-CII of 2001 and -1- Civil Revision No.2039 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.10140-CII of 2001 and Civil Revision No.2039 of 2009 Date of Order: 21.04.2011 Pushpita ...Petitioner Versus Sunny Dahiya ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the applicant-respondent RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) C.M.No.10140-CII of 2011 Prayer in this application is for early hearing and for disposal of the case. Notice of the application to counsel for the non-applicant- petitioner. Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate, for the non-applicant- petitioner accepts notice and states that she has no objection if the revision is taken on Board and disposed of. In view of the statement made by counsel for the non- applicant-petitioner, the application is allowed and the revision is taken on Board for final decision. Civil Revision No.2039 of 2009 C.M.No.10140-CII of 2001 and -2- Civil Revision No.2039 of 2009 The petitioner impugns an order dated 09.03.2009, passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, dismissing the application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 & 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Vide order dated 07.05.2008, the petitioner-wife was proceeded against ex-parte. The petitioner-wife thereafter filed an application for setting aside this order. However, vide order dated 09.03.2009, the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, dismissed the application. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte during conciliation proceedings primarily on the ground that she failed to put in appearance in conciliation proceedings. It is submitted that the fact that the petitioner did not appear during conciliation does not entitle the Additional District Judge to direct ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner particularly when she was represented by her counsel. Counsel for the respondent submits that as the petitioner did not abide by orders directing her to appear in re-conciliation proceedings, the trial court had no option but to direct ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and have no hesitation in holding that the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, is not only perverse and arbitrary but is without jurisdiction. The fact that a party choses not to appear in conciliation proceedings, does not entitle a trial court to initiate ex- parte proceedings. All that a Court may do in such a situation is to C.M.No.10140-CII of 2001 and -3- Civil Revision No.2039 of 2009 bring the conciliation proceedings to an end. The petitioner was admittedly represented by her counsel and, therefore, could not be proceeded against ex-parte. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the revision is allowed, the orders dated 07.05.2008 and 09.03.2009 are set aside and parties are directed to appear before the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, on 03.06.2011, for further proceedings. April 21, 2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE