Back
2009 Supreme(UK) 135
2009 (2) UAD 299
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant
First Appeal No. 95 of 2007
RAM AVTAAR MISHRA – Appellant
Versus
SMT. RACHNA – Respondent
Decided on : 26.03.2009
For the Respondent:Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, Advocate
For the Appellant :Mr. Anil Dabral, Advocate
Headnote:Family Courts Act, 1984, Sec. 19(6) — Review Application — Recalling of Order — Orders, passed by the Judge Family Court are appellable u/sec.19 of the Act and are required to be heard by two or more judges of the High Court and it does not make any difference whether the order was passed under Or. 9, R. 13, C.P.C. or otherwise — There being an error apparent on the face of the record — Judgment and order passed by the Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court liable to be recalled — Review application, accordingly allowed, recalling the said order, with necessary direction to lay the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice. (Paras 5, 6)
ifjokj U;k;ky; vf/kfu;e] 1984] /kkjk&19¼6½ & iqufoZpkj izkFkZuk i= & vkns'k dks jn~n fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk & ifjokj U;k;ky; U;k;k/kh'k }kjk ikfjr vkns'k vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk&19 ds vUrxZr vihyh; gS vkSj mPp U;k;ky; dh nks vFkok vf/kd U;k;k/kh'kksa dh ihB }kjk lquk tkuk visf{kr gS vkSj bl dk dksbZ izHkko ugha iM+rk gS fd vkns'k nhokuh izfd;k lafgrk ds vkns'k 9 fu;e 13 ds vUrxZr ikfjr fd;k x;k Fkk ;k vU; fdlh izdkj ls & ekU; mPp U;k;ky; ds ,dy U;k;k/kh'k }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS & iqufoZpkj izkFkZuk i= rnuqlkj Lohdr fd;k x;k vkSj mDr iz'uxr vkns'k dks jn~n fd;k x;k vkSj funsZ'k fn;k x;k fd bl izdj.k dks ekU; eq[; U;k;k/kh'k ds lEeq[k j[kk tk,A ¼izLrj 5] 6½
This is delay condonation application No. 1662 of 2008, moved on behalf of the review applicant for condonation of delay in filing the review application.
2. Heard and perused the affidavit.
3. Delay condonation application is allowed. Delay is condoned.
4. Also, heard on review application No. 329 of 2008, moved on behalf of respondent (wife) for review/recall of judgment and order dated 02.01.2008, passed by Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 95 of 2007.
5. Learned counsel for the review applicant drew attention of this Court to sub-section (6) of Section19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, which provides that an appeal under Section 19 shall be heard by a Bench consisting of two or more judges. It appears that learned Single Judge, has committed error apparent on the face of the record by deciding an appeal in which an order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, was challenged.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party contended that the impugned order, passed by Principal Judge, Family court was under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. and that is why the statement was made on 06.09.2007 before the Division Bench, which directed it to be listed before Single judge. In the humble opinion of this Court, it does not make any difference whether the order was passed under Order IX Rule 13 or otherwise. All final orders passed by Judge, Family Court, are appellable under Section 19 and required to be heard by two or more judges of the High Court.
7. Therefore, there being error apparent on the face of the record, in the judgment and order dated 02.01.2008, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby F.A. No. 95 of 2007, against order of Principal Judge, Family Court, is disposed of, is liable to be recalled.
8. Accordingly, the review application is allowed. Order dated 02.01.2008, passed by learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 95 of 2007, is recalled. Registry is directed to lay the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for his lordship’s direction to list the matter before the appropriate Division Bench.
