AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Maninder S Bhatti, J
Petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 15/06/2022 by which the application moved by the petitioner under section 151 of CPC seeking a direction to proceed the respondent ex-parte has been disposed of.
The counsel submits that upon institution of case in Family Court the notices were issued to the respondent and those notices were served upon the respondent which is evident from perusal of Annexure P-4. Even the respondent had moved an application (Annexure P-5) and stated that though she was in receipt of notice but copy of the petition was not enclosed with the said notice nor the case number was mentioned in notice. Accordingly, an application was made by petitioner to the Family Court, Bhopal which is contained in Annexure P-7 and prayed that respondent be proceeded ex-parte. While dealing with the said application the court has again issued bailable warrant of Rs. 5000/- for securing appearance of respondent.
Counsel submits that the court below ought to have proceeded ex-parte inasmuch as despite the receipt of notice, the respondent did not appear. The service of notice is undisputed which is evident from communication which is contained in Annexure P-5. It was sent at the behest of respondent only. Therefore, submits that trial court instead of issuing bailable warrant ought to have proceeded ex-parte.
Having heard the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner it is gathered from perusal of Annexure P-4 that a notice was served upon the respondent and upon receipt of that notice, the respondent sent a communication which is contained in Annexure P-5 to the Family Court, Bhopal. In which it is stated that the notice received by the her neither contains the case number nor the copy of petition was enclosed therewith. It is further mentioned in the communication that the respondent made a request to send a copy of petition in order to enable her to file counter to the petition. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order passed by the court below dated 15/06/2022 requires no interference inasmuch as to do complete justice, the participation of both the parties in the matter is necessary. Moreover, the manner in which the notice has been served upon the respondent is also not proper. It was incumbent upon the Office to send a copy of petition alongwith notice to the respondent which in the present case has not been done therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity with the order dated 15/06/2022 which is being sought to be assailed in the present writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.