KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. KAVITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 26.07.2012 (Annexure P/1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, whereby application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC moved by the respondent for restoration of application under Section 25(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there is 30 days limitation period for restoring an application which is to be reckoned from the date of dismissal of application, Section 122 of the Limitation Act applies. In the present case, provision of law has not been followed and the restoration has been ordered. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgments of this Court in Mool Chand Yadav @ Ashok v. Phool Singh and another, 2010 5 RCR(Civ) 8 and Smt. Dev Bala Sehgal v. Devinder Pal Sehgal, 2001 4 RCR(Civ) 757.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. It is contended that counsel for the respondent Sh. G.L. Nagpal fell seriously ill. He could not attend the Court, as a result of which, application under Section 25(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed in default on 01.03.2011. The non-appearance of the respondent as well as her counsel was neither intentional nor deliberate. Due to the illness of the counsel for the respondent, no-one could appear on the date fixed as a result of which application was dismissed in default. Immediately when the respondent came to know of the dismissal, application for restoration was moved which has been rightly allowed by the learned Trial Court on 26.07.2012. The relevant part of the order is as under:-

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.