IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR v w.P.(227) N0.%<J\\ OF 2010 / Amit Kumar Gupta, S/ o Shri Ramesh Chandra Gupta, aged about 3O years, R/o Shakti Nagar, P.O. 85 P.S.—Mohan Nagar, Durg, District— Durg (C.G.) EETITIGNER/ : W!)W L. VERSUS NDENT : AMA Paupp Ifaw;‘_ Smt. Archana Gupta, W/o Shri Amit Kumar Gupta, aged about'28 years, R/o C/o Shri Ashok Gupta, Nutan Hardware Gupta Sons, Loha Ugeli, Itwari, Nagpur M.S.) v r WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA A RESPO ( S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227! No. 4841/2010 PETITIONER : Amit Kunmr Gupta Versus K. RESPONDENT : Slut. Arama Gupta ‘ Wm Smt. Fouzia Mina, counsel for the petitioner. \ VVRIT‘PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE . N CONSTITUTION OF IND ORAL ORDER (27.03.2010) The Family Court has rejecwd the objectian raised by the petitioner/appiicant to the e$ect that as long as the V defendant/respondent’s application under Order 9 an application on 15/01/2010 for setting aside the ex \ ‘/ 2/02/2010, the court below dimcted that for deciding -parto the order. On ifor I setting aside the earlier ex- order the posnnan who had made application endorsement on the anvelope canying the summons to the respondent is required to be examined. (3) When the matter was 1ixed for reconcthauon on 29/04/2010 the petmoner moved the subject legal objeeuon mter aha praying that the court should not proceed to decide the respondent’s application under section 24 of the Hindu Maniage Act during pendenoy of her application under Order 9 Rule 7 o‘fCPC. (4) The Trial Court has rejected the objeén'on and has posted the (5) Counsel for the petitioner has urged that since the Tnal Court has already ordered for exammation of the postman 1t would not be proper to proceed to decide the appheation for grant of interim maintenance because the ex—parte order has not yet been set aside. (6) In the opinion of this court, the subject legal olyectxon msed by the petitioner is not supported by any pmence or procedure m law It is always open for the defendant to pamctpate m the fmther proceeding when the apphcanon under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC is pending. If during' such participation, the defendant has any other legal right or entitlement like in the present, where respondent/vote ts . entitled to move an application under section 24 of Hmdu Marriage Act, then the smd right of the party cannot be denied or kept in l f i l abeyance merely because the apphcation for settmg aside an earlier ex-parte order is pending. g t l ,3 r (7) The Trial Court amt referring the provisions centained in Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC has observed that the defendant is entitled to patticipate in the further proceeding and therefore all other proceedings in the suit need not be kept in abeyance during pendenoy ofthe application under Order 9 Rule 7 ofCPC. (8) In the opinion of this coult, the reasons assigned by the Trial Court while meeting legal objection raised by the petitioner is not perverse or unreasonable. (9) The Supreme Court, in the matter of Celina Coelho Pereirn (Ms) and others Vs. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar lanollrur and others reported in (2010) l SCC 217 has laid down principle as to eases in which the High Court can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India. 0n applying the principles, in the Ms ofthe present ease, this court does not hm! that it is a ht ease for entertaining the petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India. In, (10) Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishrai Judge ‘