SURINDER MITTAL Vs. POOJA MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - The petitioner-husband has filed the present revision under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar on 17.10.2012 whereby his defence to the application filed by the respondent-wife under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short "the Act") was struck off.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that instead of filing reply to the application under Sec. 24 of the Act, a request was made on behalf of the petitioner for adjournment. However, keeping in view the fact that the adjournment granted on the last date of hearing was subject to costs and with clear instructions that no further opportunity would be granted and despite the same no reply had been filed, the Court below did not accede to the request made by the petitioner.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was earlier represented by a different counsel. On 3.10.2012 another counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner and filed his power of attorney. Said counsel then requested for an adjournment which was granted by describing it as last opportunity on payment of costs of Rs. 100.00. For reasons beyond his control, the counsel, who had started representing the petitioner, was not able to get the necessary reply drafted/prepared and it was for that reason alone that while appearing before the lower Court on 17.10.2012 he requested for one more opportunity for filing reply. It has been submitted that in case another opportunity is granted, the petitioner shall file reply to the application under Sec. 24 of the Act and he is also ready to compensate the respondent-wife for not filing the reply earlier.