MEENA BHAN Vs. RAVINDER GARYALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil revision has been filed against the order dtd. 28/11/2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases) Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) passed in file No. 15/Misc by virtue of which the learned trial court has set aside the ex parte order dtd. 26/5/2004 by virtue of which the maintenance pendente lite as well as litigation expenses were granted to the petitioner. The order has been assailed primarily on the ground that the learned trial court had no power to condone the delay in setting aside ex parte order as sec. 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the proceedings under Hindu Marriage Act. It is further stated that the appeal was required to be filed against the said order, as the order dtd. 26/5/2004 amounts to decree.

(2.) Mr. P. N. Goja, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has restricted his arguments only to the extent that the provisions of the limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act and as such, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further argued that the respondent had a remedy of assailing the order before the higher forum. Mr. Goja placed reliance upon the judgments reported in 1981 KashLJ 427, 2008(4) Supreme 335 and also upon the judgment of Madras High Court in case titled "P T Lakshman Kumar versus Mrs Bhavani" decided on 23/4/2013.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. L. K. Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the provisions of Limitation Act are applicable when the applicant avails the remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) and as such, there is no illegality in the order impugned.