TRILOCHANA NAYAK Vs. CHANCHALA NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-husband and submits, his client is aggrieved by order dtd. 25/1/2022 dismissing the application made under order IX rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for restoration of the civil proceeding. It was dismissed on 22/12/1999. He submits, not only was the application dismissed but cost imposed at ?5,000/-on his client, who is unable to even pay the interim maintenance of ?150/- per month.

(2.) Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent-wife and opposes the appeal. He submits, meager amount of monthly maintenance are in arrears. On top, appellant did not comply with the direction to pay cost of ?5,000/- to his client.

(3.) It appears from impugned order appellant had examined himself in support of the application. The record was posted for argument on 28/9/2021, when counsel for both parties were present and the matter heard in part. It was posted to next date on 26/10/2021 for further argument, from which time appellant did not appear. Hence, the application stood dismissed on cost imposed at ?5,000/-. Reason given is that appellant's pleadings and evidence is not reliable because he did not continue prosecuting the application.