1. Challenge in this Civil Revision, is to the order of learned 1st Additional District Judge, Srinagar dated 11-7-2009 in divorce petition under Hindu Marriage Act titled Bajinder Singh v. Sandeep Kour (File No. 5/ Numbri), whereby the learned trial Judge has "struck out the defence" of the respondent/non -applicant.

2. It appears that the aforesaid divorce petition was assigned to the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Srinagar on 27-5-2008. The non- applicant- respondent herein caused appearance through her counsel before the Trial Court on 21-6-2008. The non-applicant did not file objections on the date fixed for filing objections i.e. 23-7-2008, absented herself from the proceedings, and was set ex parte. The applicant-petitioner examined one witness in ex parte on 10-2-2008. The non-applicant, thereafter, filed an application for setting aside ex parte proceedings. The application was allowed on 6-7-2009, subject to the payment of costs. The operative part of the order reads as under:

"........ the ex parte proceedings initiated against the defendant vide order dated 16-3-2009 are hereby set aside subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 1500/- Let the file come up for examination of the parties as envisaged under O. 10 R. 2 of CPC.

Put upon 11-7-2009."

3. The divorce petition was thus posted for recording statements of the parties under Order 10 Rule 2 CPC on 11-7-2009. On the fixed date, neither the non-applicant nor her counsel appeared before the Trial Court. The learned trial Judge proceeded to pass following order:

"Plaintiff AW his counsel present.

Neither the defendant nor his counsel is present today. Even the costs have not been paid by the defendant as well as she has not chosen to appear in this Court for her examination as directed in terms of the previous order. Viewed thus, the defence of the defendant is hereby strikeout. Let the file come up for further proceedings. Put up on 1-8-2009."

4. The aforesaid order "striking out defence" and the Order dated 14-9-2009, rejecting application for review of the aforesaid order, are assailed inter alia on the grounds that the impugned orders were working harshly against the respondent and tantamounts to allowing the suit, without affording the non-applicant- respondent adequate opportunity to meet applicant- petitioners case. It is pleaded that the absence of the non- applicant on 11-7-2009 before the Trial Court was not deliberate or willful; and that the respondent aggrieved of frequent listing of petition, had filed an application for transfer of the case from the files of 1st Additional District Judge, Srinagar to any other court of competent jurisdiction; that the transfer application was dismissed, where-after the applicant appeared in the trial court and sought setting aside of ex parte proceedings. It is pleaded that on 11-7-2009, the applicant was not in a position to attend the court because of law and order problem in her home town- Baramulla and also because the public transport was off the roads due to bandh/ strike.

Heard.

5. Order X Rule 2 CPC deals with the examination of the parties by the court. Order X Rule 2 CPC provides for oral examination of party, or companion of party. It reads as under :

"Order -X: EXAMINATION OF PARTIES BY THE COURT.

2. Oral examination of party, or companion of party.

1. At the first hearing of the suit, the Court:

a) shall, with a view to elucidating matter in controversy in the suit, examine orally such of the parties to the suit appearing in person or present in Court, as it deems fit; and

b) may orally examine any person, able to answer any material question relating to the suit, by whom any party appearing in person or present in Court or his pleader is accompanied.

2. At any subsequent hearing, the Court may orally examine any party appearing in person, or present in Court, or any person able to answer any material question relating to the suit, by whom such party or his pleader is accompanied.

3. The Court may, if it thinks fit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document