The court considered the petitioner's conduct and immediate steps to set aside the ex-parte decree as indicative of an interest to oppose the relief sought by the respondent, leading to the quashing of the impugned orders.

Heard Shri J. Godinho, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri I. Agha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The above petition challenges the orders passed by the Courts below dated 19.07.2011 and 09.07.2012 whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the ex-parte decree in favour of the respondent came to be rejected.

3. Shri Godinho, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that the petitioner and the respondent are residing in the same apartment at the time of filing of the divorce suit by the respondent and immediately after receiving the summons from the Court in the divorce suit filed by the respondent, the respondent had given an assurance to the petitioner that she would withdraw the divorce suit as according to him, there was no subsisting differences between them. The learned counsel further pointed out that during the said period when the summons were received by the petitioner from the Court, the examination process was going on and as such, the petitioner who owns a van which is used to transport the students to different schools failed to remain present when the matter was fixed before the learned Trial Court. The learned counsel further pointed out that the petitioner was under an impression that the respondent had honoured the commitment given to the petitioner that she would withdraw the said suit and as such did not take steps to appear before the learned Trial Court. The learned counsel further pointed out that on 02.08.2010 the petitioner learnt from the respondent that she obtained a divorce from the Court on 28.07.2010 as she wanted to live separately. The learned counsel further pointed out that immediately thereafter the petitioner obtained a certified copy of the said judgment disposing of the divorce proceedings dated 28.07.2010 and filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree on 18.08.2010. The learned counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has essentially dismissed the application on the ground that there was no evidence adduced by the petitioner to substantiate his contention that the respondent had given such assurance. The learned counsel further pointed out that the Lower Appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the ground that there was no corroboration evidence adduced by the petitioner to substantiate his said contention.

4. On the other hand, Shri I. Agha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned orders. The learned counsel has pointed out that the respondent has acted in gross negligence in not attending the divorce proceedings and as such, no discretion can be exercised by this Court in the present Writ Petition. The learned counsel further pointed out that it is very extraneous that the petitioner is trying to contend that he was given an assurance by the respondent who was the adversal in the divorce suit that she would withdraw the divorce suit. The learned counsel further pointed out that all these contentions are cooked up by the petitioner to make an non existent case in his favour. The learned counsel further pointed out that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Lower Appellate Court an attempt was made for reconciliation which has failed. The learned counsel further pointed out that in view of bitter relation between the petitioner and the respondent, there is no scope for reconciliation and as such, the question of maintaining the marriage will not serve any purpose. The learned counsel further pointed out that in such circumstances and taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels and I have also gone through the records. The decree which is sought to be set aside wa