C^ol^ IH THB mOH COURT OF J^OICATUIUB AT BILASPUR W.P.No. ^lcs / 2003 PETITIONER Duleshwer Deshmukh, S/o Jhadu Ram Deshmukh, Aged about 45 years^ R/oMIG-I,1012,Hudco, Distt. Durg (C.O.). .-'^. -Versus- RESPONDENT8 ^y ^y^ Smt. Kirtilata Deahmiikh, W/o Duleshwer Deshmukh.^ Aged about 40 years» R/oL.I.G. 109/110, Hudco, District - Durg (C.G.). / ? WRIT PBTITIOII UHDER ARTICLB f/327 OF THB COirSTITOTOH OF IRDUL FOR I88UAHCB OF A 8OTTABLB WRIT. ORDBR OR DmBCTIOlI TO DO JU8TICB IS THB MATTBR. XI-HC-22 'S^S ^{^W^, ^Tl1<i4t<o, f^^l^y ,^....^..(?......n.}..^ •TN^y' WW^tl $b^lcb 200 W^T'SFT f^ri^snlOT 5^^1C»> tll^H 3?n^[ ^TTWHf^T <=bl^i<vl41Ti "WMf "^ 'fe^ <P»lt^l< '^^rf^R^n^i ./v' 11-7-2003 Shri Rajeev Shrivastavja By this petition fiied India, the petitioner has ch| March 2003 passed by thej Durg, by which thc iearned the ex-parte divorce agdnst Smt.Kirtitata| The of the petil was, the wife of Section 13 of the Hjndu Mart petitioner on the ground of d| issusd to the respondent provisions of Order 5 Rute returned to the Court with to the th@ application fited by the p< 5+h Additionai Sesslons Judi| about-five years of dated 20-3-1996 the responc i, counsei fbr the petitioner. bder Article 227 of the Consti'tution of illenged th©impugned order dated i5th teaned 5 Additional Sessions Judg®, ^"dditionaj Judge has in Civi! Suit.No. 26WA/95 peshmukh, wife of. the.petitioner, ioner is: that SiTit Kirtiiata hhe. petitioner and an. application under 'JGge. Ac-t was fiied on 14-11-1995 by the ^sertion. A of the appiication through post asper the \9-A of the C.P.C. The said notice was fen endorsement that the has on the of the averment in Ititioner on 20th Mareh 1996, the barned |@ Durg, granted a decree of divorce, passing of the judgment and |ent moved an applicatlon under Order 9 c3hd tte y XI-HC-22 ^n^i^r ^iph ^^ ^w^w^cr ^To? -^t^Kri^, ^xil^Ko, fa<ni^iy 3TT^T ^^K NS^<II ^q^p————*—*——•———••^y^ ^QQ l^^sr' ^IT^T '^HIISJT ^f^a •t- Additjohal 13 with Sectio'n 19 parte judgmerit and decree o| th©-respondent the notice. The has set-aside the ex-part^ Additiona! Sessions Judge is of refusa! was effectec was time barred, th^refore] quashed* I heard the the impugned ord^ respondent recorded in the decree. A perusaS of theimpu| herein moved an appijcation 151 of the C.P.C.. In parc| mentioned that on 13t June tekphone that the petitione^ July 2001 in Arya Samaj Mari Diiliwar and on com ir herein moved an appiicatior chl^i<rl^v1 ^Wdl*'?1^T^ ifa^K ^3T(^IH3^T 1 of the CP.C. for setfing the'ex- th©ground that no notice was on s-pondent refused to .accept. the Sessions Judge vide impugned order The order of the learned ict in the eye af Jaw. The service by on the respondent and the appiication th®order dateci 15th March 2003 b© !4ime^ counsel for the petitioner and r as as the statement of the ^plication for setting aside the ex-parte Ot3i impu^ned order reveals that the respondent ilnder Order 9 t3- read with Section 6 of the application the re^pondent 12001 on©BelchandQn informed her over herein 90^19+0 marry some giri on 2 |dir, Sectora=6 and the name of the girl is \Q to know about this, the respondsnt before the Poiice Station, Durg on I- XI-HC-22 3^r'^r ^\^ ^^ ^^w <if^a "3^ ^NKn^, ^Tl1<141<o, f®|^i^y 3ff^?T ^^ <?? NIH€rll ^^ich""""""""""""""""*""^?^ 200 fN^sr' ^n^r ^<TT^R'^rf^T -^ sh 4n 1-7-2001 and on 3-7-2001 sh^ 2001 her husband appeared iji of divorce has 20th Mareh 1996, thersfore came to know about the pa^ against her. Thereafter - she the certifled copy o| In that petition the statemerll's recorded by thej after recording the evidence to the concluslon not effected and herein the ex-part^ Additional Judge ha^ the decree. One of tiie oniy through the for registered as wei! as the not and th^ summons. Moreover, on he?"lein and iiripugned order i| the petitioner hereinj th4t peru|a! <=t)M{<rt41<rt "RW^ff ^ fe^t <P»l^j< ^3^WW^T filed a suit for injunction. On 6 July that case and mentioned that an ex- Iseen passed against the respondent on 6th Juiy 2001 for the first time she |sing of any ex-parte divorce |xpplied for the copy on 12-7-2001, shs the statement and divorce application. of the petitioner and the respondent jearned Additjonal Sessions Judge and the learned Additlonal Sessions Judge .the service on the responderst herein |ing the statement of the respondent and' in that order the learned given various for setting giv©n is that the summons were post, whereas.the Court ordered Jordinary process, the process summons fee not paid for ordinary of the statement of the respondent appears that if after of the took the respondent to various places re&sons regi^tered XI-HC-22 ~S^ <<ti^i<n^, ^xfl^Ko, M^II^^< Wct^T'^1 f^ri^sn^T StiHi<^ ^tf^T t- ^^ 3TI^T XH^ WRWf9lrHT^ ....KC.-^ ^ •l^^r' ^(T^TI^yTW^f^f ^- and of them went to vari^us Ex.-P/l to Ex.-P/13 are pr^c not aw^ against her* tha-t postrn^n @nve!ope not by to before the to acce^t In of the above, "I Court has not committe.d any il the and the im|3U( infirmity. I do not find any dismisse.d. rtt 4.m chi^id^'i 'w^rf "^ 'fe^t <r^^i< ^^rf^TH^n^T concerning that papers Iduced which that the xre about any ex-parte' w.ho refusal on the notice fhe petitioner who the Court as to whe-riier the respondent the notice. of the opinion that the trial legalit^ or irregularity in setting order does not suffer from any |orce In'this petition and the Is Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge [^^3^