Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

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