ANANDA JHAWAR Vs. RINKU JHAWAR PATWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

(2.) In the instant case, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 16th November, 2005 passed in Misc. Case No. 201 of 2005 arose out of an application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code praying, inter alia, for change of the Court to adjudicate the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte order as filed by the present petitioner before the trial Court, which passed such ex parte decree.

(3.) The fact leading to this application is very short. A Matrimonial Suit was fixed for hearing and on that date the respondent/ wife completed Examination-in-Chief upon service of the copy to the learned Advocate appeared for the petitioner/husband. Though a counter claim was filed in the form of an additional written statement by the husband/opposite party therein, the trial Court did not allow any adjournment but proceeded with the case and ultimately the petitioner/husband has suffered an exparte judgment and decree. Against an ex parte judgment and decree, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed praying setting aside of the exparte judgment and order and simultaneously an appeal was also preferred to the higher Court assailing the judgment and decree on merit. The petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying change of the Court on the ground that the learned Court below who decided the matter ex parte was biased against the petitioner/husband and the petitioner/ husband would suffer prejudice only on the ground that the self-same Presiding Officer who was dealing with the matrimonial suit was vested with the adjudication of a sessions case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. This application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure registered as Misc. Case No. 201 of 2005 which since has been rejected by the learned District Judge, the petitioner has assailed that order dated 16th November, 2005.