CHARU CHUG Vs. MADHUKAR CHUGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vishesh Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant (wife) and perused the record.

(2.) Vide order dtd. 9/3/2017 present appeal was admitted and notices were issued to the sole respondent-plaintiff (husband) by registered post/speed post. As per office report dtd. 15/12/2017, 'unserved notice returned due to unclaimed'. Subsequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 17/10/2022 and on a restoration application, the same was restored on 22/5/2023. In view of the fact that the appeal had been dismissed for want of prosecution, fresh notices were issued on 1/11/2023. According to the office report dtd. 9/3/2023 in respect of ordinary process, it is reported that notice not received back after service and in respect of speed post, it is reported that undelivered notice received with remark. In such circumstances, notice of service on sole respondent is deemed to be sufficient.

(3.) No one has turned up on behalf of the sole respondent (plaintiff-husband), therefore, we proceed to hear the counsel for the appellant on merits.