SH AMIT CHOPRA Vs. POOJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been tiled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 9.5.2011, Annexure P5, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide which application filed by respondent under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') has been allowed.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the caveator-respondent and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

(3.) Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') for divorce was filed by petitioner-husband against respondent-wife before competent court at Jalandhar. Part evidence was recorded at Jalandhar, when an application was moved by respondent-wife before this Court for transfer of the petition from Jalandhar to Ludhiana, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 2.7.2009, passed in Transfer Application No. 295 of 2008, Annexure PI, with the direction that petition under Section 13 of the Act filed by petitioner-husband and petition under Section 9 of the Act, which was filed by respondent-wife at Ludhiana, are required to be adjudicated by the same Court. It was also directed that cross-examination of the witnesses, whose examination-in-chief was already recorded at Jalandhar, would be completed by that Court at Jalandhar and thereafter the case would be transferred to Ludhiana. Accordingly, both petitions, i.e., one filed under Section 13 of the Act by petitioner-husband and the another filed under Section 9 of the Act by respondent-wife are being tried in the same Court at Ludhiana. However, evidence of both the parties in petition under Section 13 has already been concluded whereas petition filed under Section 9 of the Act is still at the stage of evidence of respondent-wife. Hence, on the request of respondent-wife, learned trial Court vide impugned order directed that as both the petitions were consolidated and evidence was recorded only in petition under Section 13 of the Act, and as the said evidence could not be read for the purpose of decision of petition under Section 9 of the Act, hence, the decision of petition filed under Section 13 of the Act was stayed till conclusion of the evidence in petition under Section 9 of the Act, so that both could be decided together.