SUJIT PAUL Vs. MOUSOMI PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/husband filed a suit for divorce against his wife viz. the opposite party herein in the Court of the learned District Judge at Uttar Dinajpur. The said suit which was subsequently transferred to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, 2nd Court at Raiganj, was ultimately decreed ex parte on 10th January, 2006 vide order No. 16.

(2.) The opposite party filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the said ex parte decree passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 53 of 2004. The said proceeding was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 2006. The reasons for her non-appearance before the Court on the date which was fixed for the ex parte hearing of the said suit was explained by the opposite party in her said application. It was alleged by her that such default was committed due to the laches on the part of her Advocates clerk who failed to update his diary by not recording the last two dates which were fixed for ex parte hearing of the said suit by the Court where the suit was subsequently transferred for disposal. The opposite party, thus, claimed that the reasons which prevented her from appearing before the Court were absolutely beyond her control as she was never informed about the dates which were fixed for ex parte hearing of the suit, by her learned Advocate. Accordingly, she prayed for setting aside of the said decree.

(3.) The petitioner/husband contested the said proceeding by filing objection denying the averments made out by the opposite party in her said application. The husband stated therein that the wife is not at all interested in reconciliation and this application, according to him, was filed mala fide only to prolong the litigation. Thus, he prayed for the rejection of the said application.