IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.678 of 2009 Date of decision: 24.2.2009 Surjeet Kaur ......Petitioner Versus Gurmail Singh ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. G.C. Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This petition has been filed by the wife challenging order dated 11.12.2008 passed by the Additional District, Judge, Bathinda in Civil Misc. File No.5 of 16.3.2004 whereby her application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings dated 22.8.2001 and ex parte judgment and decree dated 17.11.2001 passed against her, has been rejected. As per the version of the petitioner, the aforesaid ex parte decree was obtained by the respondent by way of misrepresentation and fraud played upon the Court. However, this version of the petitioner was not accepted by the trial Court vide impugned order and it was found that the petitioner in her cross-examination has admitted that she appeared before the Matrimonial Court on 28.7.2001 and got her presence recorded. She also admitted that the summons on the file bear her signatures. Keeping in view these facts and the other evidence on record, the trial Court found that the limitation would start to run in this case on 17.11.2001 and the petitioner has failed to prove sufficient grounds for not filing the application for setting aside the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 17.11.2001 within limitation. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since it was a matrimonial dispute, CR No.678 of 2009 -2- the same should have been decided on merits and the trial Court has erred while dismissing the petition on the ground of limitation. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court reported as Smt. Veena Rani alias Romesh Rani v. Dharam Paul alias Khem Chand 1986(1) PLR 541. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. However, I find no force in the contention raised by him. The facts of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are entirely different. In the aforesaid judgment, the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed within limitation. Moreover, in that case, the trial Court found that the service effected upon the petitioner could not be said to have been effected and keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the trial Court set aside the ex parte decree. In the present case, it has been found by the Court below that the petitioner was served and in fact was aware of the matrimonial proceedings and thus, the petitioner has failed to prove any sufficient reason for approaching the Court for setting aside the ex parte decree after a lapse of three years. Thus, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. February 24, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE