Ritu Chadha vs Ankur Chadha

Aruna Suresh, J.

CM No. 4863/2010 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

CM(M) 361/2010

Petitioner has filed a petition under Sections 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as "H.M. Act?) against the respondent. Respondent was required to file written statement within the stipulated period. He filed written statement after the expiry of period of limitation as prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC along with an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement as well as for waiver of cost imposed upon him vide order dated 24th January, 2009. The said application was duly contested by the petitioner. Trial Court vide order dated 16th November, 2009 directed the respondent to file a detailed medical certificate from the concerned doctor at RML Hospital regarding his ailment which prevented him from filing written statement within the period of limitation. Since respondent failed to file the detailed medical certificate as required and absented himself on 8th December 2009, Court struck off the written statement placed on record and proceeded ex parte against the respondent.

An application was filed by the respondent u/s 151 CPC for recalling of the order dated 8th December 2009, which was allowed by the Trial Court on 4th March, 2010. Impugned in this petition is the said order of the Trial Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that order of the Trial Court suffers from infirmities and illegalities as respondent had failed to comply with order of the Court dated 16th November, 2009 and no medical certificate was filed at all and respondent had also failed to make any sufficient ground for not having filed his written statement within the period granted by the Trial Court. Trial Court simply allowed the application of the respondent without looking into the conduct of the respondent and without considering its previous orders, unmindful of the fact that written statement, which was struck out from the record, could not be taken on record without respondent having satisfied the Court the reasons for delay in filing the written statement.

Trial Court did note the submissions of counsel for the petitioner which were made before it during the course of arguments on application filed u/s 151 CPC but in the interest of justice proceeded to allow the application. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:

Without going into the detailed discussion on the merits of the application, the order dated 08.12.2009 is recalled only in the interest of justice, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/- by respondent is disposed off.

The written statement filed by the respondent on 24.10.2009 is taken on record and order of which he was proceeded exparte is also set aside. Be listed for filing of replication, documents, admission, denial and for framing of issues on 14.04.2009.

Thus, it is clear that court exercised its inherent jurisdiction while allowing this application. No prejudice was caused to the petitioner when written statement filed by the respondent was taken on record. Since the petition before the Trial Court is for dissolution of marriage on grounds specified in the petition, to my mind, Trial Court was right in allowing this application in the interest of justice so as to afford full opportunity to both the parties to submit their case and enable the Court to reach to a fair and proper conclusion.

In R.N. Jadi and Brothers and Others Vs. Subhashchandra, , principles underlying Order VIII Rule 1 CPC were construed and it was observed that the object of the substituted Order VIII, Rule 1 intends to curb the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal of cases causing inconvenience to the plaintiffs and petitioners approaching the court for quick relief and also to the serious inconvenience the court faced with frequent prayers for adjournments. The object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. While justice delayed may amount to justice denied, justice hurried may in some cases amount to justice buried. Similar were the observations in Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Others, .

Hence, I find no merits in the petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.

CM No.4862/2010 (for stay)

Since petition has been dismissed, this application has become infructuous. It is accordingly disposed of.