Seema Sharma vs Abhay Sharma on 24 August, 2017

CR No.5103 of 2014 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CR No.5103 of 2014
Date of Decision: 24.08.2017

Seema Sharma ……Petitioner
Vs
Abhay Sharma …..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

Present:Mr. Ravi K. Matoo, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral)

[1]. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.07.2014

passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, vide

which the petitioner was directed to produce her child in the

Court without determining the application under Order 7 Rule 11

read with Section 151CPC filed by the petitioner.

[2]. In compliance to the orders dated 16.03.2016,

18.11.2016 and 16.02.2017, publication has already been

effected in the newspapers. Despite service, none has

appeared on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, the

respondent is proceeded against ex parte.

[3]. The impugned order dated 05.07.2014 reads as under:-

“Present: Sh. Rajiv Chaudhary, counsel for petitioner.

Sh. Satinder Pal, counsel for respondent.

1 of 3
02-09-2017 09:32:52 :::
CR No.5103 of 2014 2

Reply not filed. On request and in the interest
of justice, case is adjourned to 05.08.2014 for filing
reply as last opportunity. Respondent is directed to
produce the child for the date fixed.

Sd/-

Deepika/ACJSD/5.7.14″

[4]. It appears that the order has been passed at the

preliminary stage, even in the absence of the petitioner who was

impleaded as respondent in the petition under Section 9 of the

Guardians and Wards Act. On receipt of summon, the petitioner

filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151

CPC for rejection of the petition on the ground that the petitioner

along with her minor son are residing in Sangrur, whereas the

petition under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act came

to be filed in the Court at Patiala.

[5]. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under

Section 9(1) of the Act, the Court at Sangrur is having

jurisdiction, where the minor is residing and the Court at Patiala

was legally obligated to decide the application at the first

instance before passing the impugned order.

[6]. Be that as it may, the perusal of the record shows that

the order has been passed in a total non-speaking manner. It

would be just and appropriate to set aside the order dated

2 of 3
02-09-2017 09:32:53 :::
CR No.5103 of 2014 3

05.07.2014 and remand the case to the Judge, Guardian Court

at Patiala to decide the same afresh keeping in view the

application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 read

with Section 151 CPC.

[7]. In view of above, impugned order dated 05.07.2014

passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala is set

aside with the direction as made above.

August 24, 2017. (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Prince JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

3 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 02-09-2017 09:32:53 :::

Leave a Comment

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