Paramjit Kaur vs Gurpal Singh And Ors on 1 June, 2017

CR-3604-2017 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
253 CR-3604-2017
Date of Decision:01.06.2017

Paramjit Kaur …..Petitioner

Versus

Gurpal Singh and others …..Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK.

Present: Mr.H.S.Dhandi, Advocate,
for the petitioner.

Ms.Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

****

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J.(Oral)

Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order dated 25.04.2017

(Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Family Court, whereby application of

the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte order dated 26.04.2016 was

dismissed, she has approached this Court by way of present revision

petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting

aside the impugned order.

Notice of motion was issued.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is a matter of record and not in dispute that the child is of

nine years and living with his mother-petitioner. Grand-parents have filed a

petition under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 read

with Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 for

custody of the minor. The case was listed before the Family Court on
1 of 3
10-06-2017 17:01:44 :::
CR-3604-2017 2

26.04.2016, on which date the petitioner could not put appearance and she

was proceeded against ex parte, adjourning the case for 05.08.2016. It is

also not in dispute that on the very next date of hearing i.e. 05.08.2016,

petitioner put appearance and moved the application for setting aside the

above-said order dated 26.04.2016. It was this application which has been

dismissed by the learned Family Court by passing the impugned order.

READ  Kans Raj vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 26 April, 2000

A bare perusal of the impugned order would show that there

was hardly any delay on the part of the petitioner. Admittedly, she put

appearance on the very next date of hearing i.e. 05.08.2016. In such a

situation, no malafide intention can be attributed to the petitioner. Learned

Family Court proceeded on technical approach while passing the impugned

order. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the

learned Family Court committed a serious error of law, while passing the

impugned order and the same cannot be sustained.

It is the settled proposition of law that rules of procedure are

meant for advancing the cause of justice. Every court of law must make an

endeavour to grant sufficient opportunity to both the parties to the litigation

to put-up their best case before the Court. Nobody should be forced to go

home with the grievance that reasonable opportunity was not granted by the

learned court. While following the above-said principle of law, the learned

Court shall achieve twin objects; namely, (i) it will avoid multiplicity of

litigation between the parties and (ii) the learned Court would be in a much

better position to do complete and substantial justice between the parties by

rendering an effective judgment. However, in the peculiar fact situation of

the case in hand noticed here-in-above, since the learned Family Court

failed to follow the above-said principle of law in correct perspective, while

2 of 3
10-06-2017 17:01:46 :::
CR-3604-2017 3

passing the impugned order, it cannot be sustained, for this reason also.

READ  Kishor Dey vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 May, 2017

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case

noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the

considered opinion that since the impugned order has been found suffering

from patent illegality and perversity, the same cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, impugned order dated 25.04.2017 (Annexure P-5) passed by

the learned Family Court is hereby set aside. Application of the petitioner

for setting aside the ex parte order dated 26.04.2016 would stand allowed

and the petitioner shall be permitted to join the proceedings.

Resultantly, with the above-said observations made and

directions issued, instant revision petition stands allowed, however, with no

order as to costs.

June 01, 2017 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
seema JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No

3 of 3
10-06-2017 17:01:46 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *