JUDGMENT :

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J.

1. The instant appeal, under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been maintained by the appellant for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 10.7.2019, passed by the learned District Judge, Kinnaur, Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, in CMP No. 358 of 2016 with a prayer to allow the instant appeal.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal as per the appellant-respondent is that an application, under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte judgment dated 13.3.2012, vide which, ex-parte divorce decree has been passed by the learned District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr. In the said petition, the present petitioner, who was respondent in the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘wife’) that she was not duly served, summons were issued through Speed Post, on the wrong address, as the wife was never resided on the given address. This fact was very much in the knowledge of the husband. The husband got procured false and frivolous reports on the summons with the assistance of Process Serving agency. The wife was residing in House No. 1638 near Killa Manimajra, Chandigarh, since the day, when she was hurl out of the matrimonial house by her husband. The wife maintained a complaint before the concerned Police Station, Panchkula, regarding threatening of life by her husband to withdraw the execution proceedings instituted by her for maintenance order. Thereafter, the wife came to the house of her husband and asked her to withdraw the application filed by her against him before the Police, as he has already contracted second marriage after obtaining ex-parte decree of divorce on 13.3.2012. Thereafter, the wife approached the learned Court below and maintained the instant petition for setting aside the ex-parte judgment. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application of the wife, under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte judgment, dated 13.3.2012.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the impugned order dated 10.7.2019, passed by the learned First Appellate Court, wife maintained the instant appeal.

4. Ms. Neelam Kaplas, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the wife was not residing at the given address, where the so called service was effected, on the basis of presumption that the Speed Post/Registered letter has been delivered, as the time of 30 days’ has been elapsed. She has argued that the wife was not knowing this fact and only to get the ex-parte decree of divorce. Even though, the learned Trial Court without application of mind that presumption should not have been taken in divorce petition, and hence proceeded exparte against the wife and so, the order of ex-parte is required to be recalled after setting aside the ex-parte decree of judgment. In support of her arguments, she has relied upon the judgment in Jagdeep Singh vs. Chuhar Singh, passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided on 17.1.2018, on this aspect.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the entire record of the case carefully, which has come on record, this Court finds that Speed Post/Registered letter was sent, on the given address of the wife, though earlier the wife was residing, but thereafter she was not residing on the said address, which has come on record from the evidence, the presumption has been taken that she has been served, which is incorrect, when there is a divorce petition. The grant of decree of divorce petition on the basis of just presumption of service and in these circumstances, when the wife was not residing on the given address, where the Speed post/Registered letter was sent, the ex-parte order dated 10.7.2019 is required to be recalled, to meet the ends of justice.

6. The net result of the above discussions is that the exparte decree granted against the wife is required to be set aside after setting aside the ex-par