Deep Prakash Sen vs Smt. Chanchal Sen
2023 Latest Caselaw 8963 MP

                                                          1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                               ON THE 16 th OF JUNE, 2023
                                              CIVIL REVISION No. 341 of 2018

                          BETWEEN:-
                          DEEP PRAKASH SEN S/O GANESH PRASAD SEN, AGED
                          ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE HIROUD, TAHSIL
                          MAGHGAVAN, AT PRESENT R/O MANDAKINI VIHAR
                          COLONY, CIVIL LINE, SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI ARVIND SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          SMT. CHANCHAL SEN W/O DEEP PRAKASH SEN D/O
                          AJAY KUMAR SHRIVAS, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O
                          H.NO. 95, GORA BAZAR (LATTHA PANDE KA BAGICHA)
                          P.S. CANTT. DIST. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI RAKESH SAGAR - ADVOCATE)

                                This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                           ORDER

This civil revision has been preferred by the applicant/husband challenging the order dated 28.02.2018 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Satna in MJC No.17/2017 whereby learned family Court by allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC set aside the exparte judgment and decree of divorce dated 27.09.2017 passed by family Court in Hindu Marriage Case No.160/2017.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that the exparte judgment and decree was passed on 27.09.2017 and the application under Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 6/16/2023 7:12:39 PM

Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed on 30.10.2017 for setting aside the exparte decree, which was clearly barred by four days, and no application for condonation of delay was filed along with main application. He submits that despite raising objection of limitation, learned family Court did not consider the same and on surmises and conjectures that too without taking into consideration the defence of the applicant/husband, allowed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. With the aforesaid submissions he prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.02.2018.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant/wife supports the impugned order and submits that exparte judgment was passed on 27.09.2017

but in pursuance thereof, the decree of divorce was passed on 03.10.2017, therefore, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was well within the limitation, because the Rule 13 prescribes only for exparte decree and not the exparte judgment. Accordingly, he submits that the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was well within limitation and learned family Court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Apparently exparte judgment, on the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was passed on 27.09.2017. The order sheet drawn by the family Court shows that in pursuance of the exparte judgment, decree of divorce was prepared and signed on 03.10.2017. If the date of preparation of decree is taken into consideration, then the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was well within limitation.

6. As such in my considered opinion, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC filed by the non-applicant/wife cannot be said to be beyond limitation.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 6/16/2023 7:12:39 PM

7. Although the learned counsel for the applicant/husband has tried to challenge the impugned order on other grounds but in the considered opinion of this Court under the limited scope of civil revision the impugned order is not liable to be interfered with.

8. Resultantly, the civil revision fails and is hereby dismissed.

9. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE SN

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 6/16/2023 7:12:39 PM