Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J. (Oral) - C.M.No.5802-03 CII of 2011

Requests for placing on record Annexures P1 to P7.

The same are allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly.

Civil Revision No.1447 of 2011

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 1.2.2011, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, Annexure P7, vide which application filed by respondent under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 29.5.2008, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court Jalandhar, has been allowed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar.

3. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act’) was filed by present petitioner husband against respondent-wife, in which respondent-wife was proceeded ex parte and ex parte judgment and decree was also passed in favour of present petitioner against respondent. For setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree, application was filed by respondent-wife, which was contested by present petitioner. Issues were framed. Evidence of both the parties was recorded. After hearing both the parties and after considering the entire evidence, the impugned order was passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree passed in favour of petitioner-plaintiff.

4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the factum of pendency of divorce petition was in the knowledge of respondent-wife since the very beginning and he has also taken the said plea in other litigation pending between the parties. It has also been contended that service was duly effected by way of publication and hence, learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, has committed illegality in setting aside the said decree. Learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, allowed the application filed by respondent-wife for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree against her by observing as under:-

“10. Perusal of the main petition filed by the respondent against the applicant goes to show that the applicant was shown to be resident of Village Ram Pur, Post Office Lambra, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. It is also revealed that the applicant was never served personally at any stage and she was proceeded against ex parte only when notice on the aforesaid address was published in the newspaper and she failed to appear. During his cross-examination, it was candidly admitted by respondent that in the cause title of the main petition on record, he gave only one address of the applicant and that was of Village Ram Pur. He also admitted that Gurbax Kaur is living at Jawala Nagar rightly from the year 1988 onwards. Once it was in the knowledge of the respondent that the applicant was permanently living at Jawala Nagar right from the year 1988 onwards it clearly shows that he intentionally and deliberately gave wrong address of the applicant at the time of filing main divorce petition. Although he alleged that he also gave the addresses of the applicant of Jawala Nagar Colony at Maqsudan, Nurpur Colony, Jalandhar, and Saipur Colony, but perusal of petition goes to show that only one address of village Ram Pur was given. Thus, the respondent misled the Court at the time of obtaining order of substituted service by way of giving wrong address of the applicant.

11. Although it is proved on record that in another lis pending between the parties, the respondent filed replication, Ex.R1 on 24.1.2008 in which passing reference of pendency of one divorce petition was made, but neither the name o