VIKAS AGARWAL Vs. ANUBHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We-have heard learned counsel for the parties. In this appeal, the appellant is challenging the order dated 24th August, 2000 passed by learned Single Judge whereby on account of consistent failure on the part of the appellant to appear before the Court inspite of specific direction in that behalf, the defence of the appellant was struck off. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that such an order could not have been passed under Order X Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has drawn our attention to the various Rules forming part of Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the conduct of the appellant has been such that he does not deserve any indulgence from the Court. He has sought to justify the impugned order by highlighting the conduct of She appellant. He has placed before us a compilation containing various orders passed by the 'earned Single Judge from time to time in the case.

(2.) It appears from the orders of the learned Single Judge that the need to examine the appellant in person arose on account of failure of the appellant and his representatives in India including his counsel, to specifically and clearly place before the Court the fact whether the restraint order passed in the Suit on 5th November, 1999 was brought to the notice of the Court in America which was dealing with a divorce petition filed by the appellant. By order dated 5th November, 1999 the learned Single Judge restrained the appellant who is defendant in the Suit before the learned Single Judge, from proceeding further with the proceedings for divorce in the Superior Court, State of Connecticut, U.S.A. for a period of 30 days from the date of the order. It appears that on 23rd November, 1999 the Court in America passed a decree of divorce. The learned Single Judge wanted to know whether the factum of the restraint order having been passed in these proceedings on 5th November, 1999 was brought to the notice of the Court in America. It is noted in the order dated 9th March, 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge that the impression that he gathered from the material on record was that the pendency of these proceedings was not brought to the notice of the Court in America. It appears that it was stated by the counsel for the appellant appearing before the learned Single Judge on 9th March, 2000 ,that the restraint order dated 5th November, 1999 had been brought to the notice of the American Court but the learned Single Judge observed in this behalf that:

(3.) An attempt was made to place the fact of restraint order having been brought to the notice of American Court through an affidavit of the father of the appellant. This did not appeal to the learned Single Judge keeping in view the fact that the father was neither present before the American Court nor he was involved in any manner in communicating the restraint order to the Attorneys of the appellant in America. Rather in view of this conduct of the appellant, the learned Single Judge issued a show cause notice for contempt of Court on 9th March, 2000.