Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: Supreme Court

JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT UPHOLDS EX PARTE DECREE IN DIVORCE CASE, CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN ORDER V RULE 15 OF THE CPC WERE SATISFIED

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court upheld an ex parte decree and dismissed an appeal challenging the order of the trial court. The appellant, Dr. Kiran Bala, had sought to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree in a dissolution of marriage case (Divorce Case) against Dr. Ashwani Kumar Singh Jasrotia. The key contention raised by Dr. Kiran Bala was that she was not duly served with the summons. However, the court found no merit in her claim and affirmed the trial court’s decision and conditions mentioned in order v rule 15 of the cpc were satisfied. “The appellant was duly served with the summons, and there was no sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte decree. The trial court’s decision to proceed ex parte was justified based on the material on record.”

The High Court, in its judgment delivered by Justice Sanjay Dhar, carefully examined the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and scrutinized the facts of the case. The court noted that the summons had been served on Dr. Kiran Bala’s father, who assured the process server that she would appear before the court on the designated date. However, Dr. Kiran Bala failed to make an appearance, leading to the ex parte proceedings and the subsequent decree in favor of Dr. Ashwani Kumar Singh Jasrotia.

Justice Sanjay Dhar, while dismissing the appeal, stated, “The trial court had made several attempts to serve the summons upon the appellant in person, but she could not be found at her given address. Her father accepted the summons and informed the process server that he would convey the same to the appellant. The conditions mentioned in Order V Rule 15 of the CPC were satisfied, and the trial court was justified in declaring that the appellant had been duly served with the summons.”

The court further noted that the appellant had failed to provide any evidence to support her claim of mental trauma and depression preventing her from being informed about the divorce petition. The court deemed her argument as an afterthought and held that it could not be considered for the first time on appeal.

Date of Decision: 09.02.2023

Dr. Kiran Bala   VS Dr. Ashwani Kumar Singh Jasrotia

Similar News