S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 270/2007 Ram Deo Puri vs. Smt. Anita Order dt : 11/9/2008 1/3 S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 270/2007 (Ram Deo Puri vs. Smt. Anita) DATE OF ORDER : 11/9/2008 HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi, for the petitioner. Mr.D.L.R.Vyas, for the respondent. 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. This revision petition is against the order dated 7/11/2007, whereby, learned Family Court allowed the application of respondent-wife under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside the ex-parte divorce decree dated 28/7/2005. The learned Family Court has stated in the impugned order dated 7/11/2007 that the petitioner- husband was in service of Police Department and under a wrong impression given to respondent-wife he obtained her signatures on summons of divorce application issued by the Family Court and produced the same before the Court as if the same were duly served. When the respondent-wife realised her mistake later on when ex-parte decree was passed, she filed the present application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which has been allowed by the learned Family Court and divorce application has been restored for its decision afresh on merits. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 270/2007 Ram Deo Puri vs. Smt. Anita Order dt : 11/9/2008 2/3 the said application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC late was also allowed by the learned Family Court on a cost of Rs.200/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no justification on the part of learned Family Court to allow the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC as the respondent-wife was given full opportunity to defend herself in the said divorce application by service of summons. 4. On the side opposite, Mr. D.L.R.Vyas submits that the husband and wife lived together at the relevant point of time and on the date the said summon was shown to have been served upon her, she had temporarily gone to her parents house and petitioner-husband approached her to get the signatures on the said summons misleading her by not disclosing the correct character of papers on which signatures were obtained. It is only when ex-parte decree was passed against her that she realised her mistake and she applied for setting aside the ex-parte divorce decree. He further submits that learned court below has not erred in allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. 5. Having heard learned counsels, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 7/11/2007, whereby, learned S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 270/2007 Ram Deo Puri vs. Smt. Anita Order dt : 11/9/2008 3/3 Family Court has allowed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and restoring the divorce application for decision afresh on merits. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that the respondent-wife was misled and her signatures on summons were obtained under wrong impression. The petitioner-husband serving in police department appears to have kept the respondent-wife in dark about the papers on which such signatures were obtained and ex-parte decree was obtained from the Family Court on 28/7/2005. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that after the application for setting aside the ex-parte divorce decree was filed by the respondent-wife, the petitioner-husband entered into the second marriage. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision is found to be devoid of merit and same is accordingly dismissed. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J. item no.40 baweja/-