Courts should not dismiss petitions for minor procedural irregularities when no prejudice is shown, emphasizing the importance of pursuing substantial justice.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein prayer has been made for setting aside the orders dated 12.10.2022 and 13.03.2024, passed in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 23 of 2022, by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur, by which, the learned court has been pleased to admit the petition filed under Order-IX rule-13 read with Section 151 of the CPC by the sole opposite party and condone the limitation by the said orders, in view of that the aforesaid two orders are under challenge herein.

3. Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein instituted a suit, being Matrimonial Suit No. 64 of 2015 for dissolution of marriage before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur against the sole opposite party filed under Sections 13(1)(i-a)(1-b) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT . He submits in that case, the notices were sent to the sole opposite party through the post and paper publication of notice was also made in the local newspaper having the circulation in the district of Bhagalpur (Bihar), but the opposite party has not appeared before the learned court. He then submits that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur by its judgment dated 15.09.2016 and decree dated 26.09.2016 passed an ex-parte order of divorce and allowed the matrimonial Suit No. 64 of 2015. He submits that in this background, a petition under Order-IX Rule-13 read with Section 151 of the CPC was filed being Civil Misc. Case No. 23 of 2022 by the sole opposite party before the learned court, which has been admitted by order dated 12.10.2022 and notice was issued and it was posted for 06.12.2022. He submits that the learned court has erred in admitting the said petition by order dated 12.10.2022 without condoning the delay and thereafter on 13.03.2024, the learned court has condoned the delay after hearing both the sides in view of that there is procedural defect and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Paras Nath Keshari Versus Dwarika Prasad Keshari & Ors., reported in 2008(3) JLJR 298 (Jhr).

4. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that in absence of providing any opportunity of hearing on the condonation petition, the said case was allowed by the co-ordinate bench of this court.

5. Learned senior counsel further submits that the petition under Order-IX Rule-13 CPC was not verified by the sole opposite party, in view of that if the said petition is not verified under Order- VI Rule-14 and 15 of the CPC that is mandatory provision in the CPC. He submits that after the divorce, the petitioner has solemnized the second marriage and after six years of the said divorce, the said petition has been filed, which is further not maintainable and the ex- parte order has been passed due to the conduct of the sole opposite party and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of A. Raja Sundari Versus Suresh Kumar , reported in AIR 2016 MADRAS 160.

6. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the learned court has further passed the order erroneously, as such, this petition may kindly be allowed.

7. Per contra, Ms. Amrita Sinha,