Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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

Latest Legal News