wag 3mg}; Shri / , PETITIONER Amit Kumar Gupta IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION 227 Now/Lé OF 2010 S/o Rameshchaxldra Gupta, aged about 3O years, Occupation Service, posted as Teehnicial (Automobile) Nath Top (J&K), presehtly at Nasik; Air Force, R/o- Jayanti Nagar, Post and Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg C.G. VERSUS Smt. Archana Gupta W/o Shri Amit Kumar Gupta, aged aut 28 years, R/o vc/o Ashok Gupa, Nutan Hardware, Gupta Sons, Loa Oli, Itwari, Nagpur / RESPONDENT /" bo t h - Maharashtra—440002 - '1 5 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . MAY THIS PLEASE TO YOUR LORDSIIIP, {:x J J 1 r r I I \ { \ \ ‘ \ \ \ r r r I \ l r r r { \ ‘ \ ‘ I I I @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Ho’ble Shri stice Prashant Kumar Mish n Ju ra Writ Petition (227) No.6226 of 2010 Amit Kumar Gupta Petitioner VerSUS Respondent Smt. Archana Gupta Present: Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the petitioner Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of india ORAL ORDER (Passed on 27‘“ October, 2010) Heard on admission. 2. The trial Court has allowed the respondent/wife’s application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of ClVIl Procedure 1908 ‘the Code) for setting asrde the ex parte order dated 3- 1 0—2009 and on subsequent dates. (henceforth 3. The family Court ls seized of the matter under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights The application for setting aSide ex parfe order was moved by the respondent on the submission inter a/ia that she has never received the summons issued by the Court and that she wants to participate m the trial and defend the suit 4 r Learned trial Court, after observing that the postman has made an endorsement on the summons that “notice not claimed returned to sender has passed the ex parte order The concerned 2 postman was examined. The address on the envelope was of a shop in which the respondent never appears or visits. instead, the shop is Iooked after by her father. The postman has admitted that he has not made any endorsement as to whether the envelope was not claimed by the father or by any servant available in the shop. In view of this statement, the family Court has concluded that summons was not served on the respondent. 5. On‘ perusal of the impugned order, this Court is satissed that the learned family Court has appreciated the statement made by the postman in its true perspective and has exercised the jurisdiction under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code for setting aside the ex parte order. 6. The learned family Court has not committed any such illegality or irregularity warranting interference under Article 227 of‘the Constitution‘ of lndia. 7. In the result, the instant writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the matter is pending since July, 2009 and more than one year has passed, therefore, the family Court may be directed to dispose of the matter as early as possible. 9. On due consideration, it is directed that the learned family Court shall do well to dispose of,«the proceedings as early as l l l l l l l l l i l i 3 @ possible. The parties shall co-operate with the family Court in early disposal of the matter. Sdi- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gapal ‘Im ’ x ‘t