JABBAR Vs. SAJITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above petition is to condone the delay of 649 days in filing the Mat. Appeal. The appeal, in turn, is directed against an ex parte order directing the appellant to return 44 grams of gold ornaments or its value to the respondent, his wife.

(2.) When this matter came up for admission, learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner was requested to explain how an appeal against the impugned ex parte order is maintainable on merits when no application has been filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte order. Counsel was requested to specifically explain whether the challenge is maintainable on grounds other than the ground that the appellant was wrongly set ex parte, in which event the proper remedy is to file an application under Order 9 Rule 13. Counsel took time to take instructions and to work up the legal position.

(3.) Today when the matter came up, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant shall be taking steps to file a proper petition under Order 9 Rule 13. Without prejudice to the right of the appellant to prosecute the said petition under Order 9 Rule 13, this petition for condonation of delay and the appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn, submits the counsel for the appellant/petitioner.