DALIIT KAUR Vs. TAJENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Sec. 43(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order dated 21-1-1985 in M.J.C. No. 6 of 1984 whereby the appellant's application under Rule 13 of Order 13, Code of Civil Procedure, was rejected.

(2.) The parties are husband and wife and were married on 7-3-1976. As a result of wedlock a female child was born on 20-9-1977 and is at present with the appellant. The marital peace could continue for long and the appellant left Neemuch in Feb., 1980 deserting the respondent. Eventually on 27-4-1984 the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 13-C of 1984 under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty.

(3.) On 2-5-1984 the Trial Court before registration of the suit ordered issue of summons to the appellant through the District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh as also through post A.D. and fixed the case for 13-6-1984 for appearance of the appellant. On this date the trial Court recorded in the order sheet that the summon-, has been returned with the report that the appellant after accepting the copy of the summons declined to acknowledge its receipt. Acting on the report of the process server, the Court proceeded ex-parte and fixed 18-6-1984 for ex-parte evidence. On 18-6-1984 the order sheet of the trial Court reveals that on 15-6-1984, a telegram was received from the appellant that on account of imposition of curfew and suspension of transport, she was not in a position to attend the hearing. Therefore, the trial Court deferred recording of ex-parte evidence and on the respondent's paying fresh process alongwith postal charges, ordered issue of a fresh notice informing her the next date i.e. 5-7-1984 through registered post. As per order sheet 5-7-1984, learned trial Court recorded that by notice No. 1015 dated 12-6-1984 sent through registered post, the appellant was informed that 5-7-1984 is the date of hearing. Despite that, she was neither present nor any information was received from her. Therefore, the Court proceed ex-parte as before.