2023:PHHC:130709

CR-5982-2023

-1-

122

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR-5982-2023

DECIDED ON: 09.10.2023

PARVEEN GARG ALIAS ASHU

…..PETITIONER

VERSUS

POOJA RANI

.....RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL.

Present:

Mr. Satish Kumar Garg, Advocate

for the petitioner.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

1.

The present revision petition assails the order dated 10.05.2023

(Annexure P-2) passed by the Principal Judge (Family Court), Karnal vide

which the defence of the petitioner-husband had been struck off.

2.

A petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was filed by the respondent-wife for

dissolution of their marriage. The petition was accompanied by an application

under Section 24 of the Act for the grant of maintenance pendente lite. The

petitioner-husband did not file the written statement nor did he pay the costs

imposed by the Court as a result of which his defence his struck off by way of

the impugned order.

3.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner

is a very poor person and he has been non-suited on mere technicalities.

Learned counsel has submitted that cases should be decided on merits and not

on technicalities.

5.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for

PRINCE CHAWLA

2023.10.11 10:09

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:130709

CR-5982-2023

-2-

the petitioner but find the same to be devoid of merit.

6.

A similar issue was examined by a Full Bench of this Court in

‘Shri. Anand Parkash Vs. Shri Bharat Bhushan Rai and another’, 1982 (1)

RCR (Rent) 1. A suit for recovery was filed by one Anand Parkash against

Bharat Bhushan Rai and Another. Before the evidence of the plaintiff could be

recorded, an application was filed on behalf of the defendants that defendant

No.2 had died and as her LRs were not brought on record, the suit had abated.

The factum of death was admitted by the plaintiff but the date of death was

disputed. Parties were directed to lead evidence about the date of death of

defendant No.2-Smt. Dhanvantri Devi. After some evidence had been led, the

case was adjourned to 23.08.1978 for remaining evidence. On this date, an

adjournment was prayed for on behalf of the defendants on the ground that the

counsel had gone out of station. The prayer for adjournment was granted

subject to payment of ₹35/- as costs. The defendants stated that they did not

wish to pay the costs as they were not wanting to lead any evidence. An

application was filed by the plaintiff under Order 18 Rule 17 read with

Sections 151 and 35-B CPC to the effect that since the defendants had refused

to pay the costs intentionally in order to delay the proceedings, they be

debarred from prosecuting their defence any further. The trial Court accepted

the said plea and held that that the defendants could not be allowed to further

prosecute their application but the plea of the plaintiff that the defence be

struck off was negatived.

7.

However, the Hon’ble Full Bench held that where costs had

deliberately not been paid, the defence on the whole would be struck off. The

relevant part of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow:-

“3. Anand Parkash petitioner filed a suit for the recovery of

Rs. 400/- against Bharat Bhushan Rai and another,

PRINCE CHAWLA

2023.10.11 10:09

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:130709

CR-5982-2023

-3-

defendants. Before the evidence of the plaintiff could be

recorded, an application was filed on behalf of the

defendants to the effect that Smt. Dhanvantri Devi,

defendant No. 2, had died and as her legal representatives

were not brought on the record, the suit had abated. The

plai