AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.V. Gupta, C.J.—F.A.O. No. 172-M of 1985 filed on behalf of the wife arising out of a divorce petition was dismissed vide order dated 6-3-1986. Dissatisfied with the same, wife Surinder Kaur filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 338 of 1986 and simultaneously also moved an application for review before the learned Single Judge of his order dated 6-3-1986. The said review application was contested on behalf of the husband. However, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the review application was allowed and the order dated 6-3-1986 was recalled vide order dated 21-5-1986. Dissatisfied with the said order, the husband filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 558 of 1986. Learned counsel for the husband appellant submitted that there was no ground for reviewing the earlier order and hence the order dated 21-5-1986 was illegal and without jurisdiction. At this stage. Rule 7 Order XLVII of the CPC may be reproduced as under:--
"7. Order of rejection not appealable. Objections to order granting application;
(1) An order of the Court rejecting the application shall not be appealable; but an order granting an application may be objected to at once by an appeal from the order granting the application or in an appeal from the decree or order finally passed or made in the suit.
(2) ...... ...... ...... (3) ...... ...... ......
Though this Rule provides an appeal from the order granting the application for review but at the same time it has further been provided therein that this objection is available to the party in an appeal from the decree or order finally passed or made in the suit.
Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that it is a matrimonial matter, we do not go into at this stage as to whether the order dated 21-5-1986 allowing the review was warranted or not as this objection will be available to the party in an appeal from the decree which may be finally passed in the divorce petition by the learned Single Judge.
At this stage, learned counsel for the husband-appellant stated that the wife is unnecessarily delaying the matter for getting maintenance pendente lite. On this, it was stated at the Bar on behalf of the wife that no maintenance will be claimed by her as long as the matter remains pending before the learned Single Judge.
Consequently, this appeal is disposed of so that the matter be finally disposed of LOW by the learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties. Since it is a matrimonial matter and is pending since 1985, the F.A.O. be set down for hearing within one month.