AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Initially this appeal has been preferred as a Miscellaneous Appeal, but by the order dated 15.09.2010 prayer of the Appellant for converting it to First Appeal was accepted. However, court fee of a petty amount of Rs. 230/- was not paid and this has been paid today as submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. In view of the above reason, the limitation can be counted by taking into account the date of appeal only from today then it becomes barred by almost one year.
Be that as it may, taking a lenient view, we are condoning the delay and at the request of the counsel for the Appellant, we heard on merit.
The appeal has been preferred against the order passed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC whereby the Respondent's application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex-parte decree dated 26.05.2005 has been allowed by the trial court vide order dated 02.06.2010.
According to learned Counsel for the Appellant, the Respondent disclosed the fact that she came to know about this ex-parte decree only in 2007. However, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that this fact was absolutely false.
We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the facts of the case and the reasons given in the impugned order. It appears that after recording evidence of the parties, finding of fact has been recorded and thereafter, ex-parte decree has been set aside by the trial court in a matrimonial matter on a petition filed by the wife of the Appellant. Therefore, we are of the view that this Court is not inclined to exercise appellate jurisdiction, for setting aside of such finding of fact at a belated stage. Therefore, the appeal of the Appellant is dismissed having no merit.