CR Nos.1026 and 3554 of 2016(OM) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 16.08.2018
1. CR No.1026 of 2016(OM)
Arun Mahajan …… Petitioner
Versus
Vidhi Mahajan @ Ria Mahajan …..Respondent
2. CR No.3554 of 2016
Arun Mahajan …… Petitioner
Versus
Vidhi Mahajan @ Ria Mahajan …..Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present:Petitioner in person.
Mr. S.S. Chadha, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.
[1]. Vide this common order, CR No.1026 of 2016 titled
Arun Mahajan Vs. Vidhi Mahajan @ Ria Mahajan and CR
No.3554 of 2016 titled Arun Mahajan Vs. Vidhi Mahajan @ Ria
Mahajan are being decided. Facts are being taken from CR
No.1026 of 2016.
[2]. In CR No.1026 of 2016, petitioner has assailed the
order dated 19.01.2016 passed by Additional District Judge,
1 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 21-08-2018 15:14:48 :::
CR Nos.1026 and 3554 of 2016(OM) 2
Chandigarh, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for
summoning the witnesses was dismissed and in CR No.3554 of
2016, petitioner has assailed the order dated 04.03.2016
passed by Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide which
evidence of the petitioner was closed by order.
[3]. The present revision petitions have arisen out of
proceedings of Hindu Marriage Act between the parties. An ex
parte judgment and decree of divorce was passed on
30.03.2011 by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh in
favour of the petitioner. After the aforesaid decree, the petitioner
contracted the second marriage on 16.04.2014.
[4]. Respondent filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13
read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the ex parte
judgment and decree dated 30.03.2011 by ascertaining that the
decree was fraudulently obtained by the petitioner by giving
false address of the respondent intentionally as the respondent
and the petitioner were living as husband and wife in the same
house i.e. House No.225, Sector-35 C, Chandigarh till
24.05.2014.
[5]. The application filed by the respondent was contested
by the petitioner.
2 of 10
21-08-2018 15:14:48 :::
CR Nos.1026 and 3554 of 2016(OM) 3
[6]. Petitioner filed an application for summoning the
following witnesses:-
I) The Officer/Official concerned from Chandigarh
Administration Gazette, Chandigarh Govt. Press, U.T.
Sector 18, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh along with
complete record in name of Shallie Saini w/o Arun
Mahajan, d/o Harbans Saini, r/o 225/35A, Chandigarh
having changed her name to Shallie Mahajan after
marriage pertaining to Gazette notification published on
May 1, 2014 Part-II Page 38.
II) The Officer/Official concerned from the Court of Sh.
Gursher Singh, PCS, JMIC, Jalandhar along with
record of petition in case No.MNT 125/317/2014 and
complaint under PWDVA-COMA 291/2014 titled as
Vidhi Mahjan Vs. Arun Mahajan which is fixed for
15.01.2016.
III) The Officer/Official concerned from the office of
Tehsildar-cum-Registrar of Marriages, Chandigarh
Administration, Chandigarh along with record of
Marriage Registration Certificate registered under
Chandigarh Compulsory Registration of Marriages
Rules 2012 which was registered on 20.05.2014 under
registration No.1284 of Arun Mahajan and Shallie
Mahajan.
IV) The Ward Officer/Official Ward 4(1) concerned
Income Tax Official Chandigarh along with complete
detail of Income Tax Returns filed by Arun Mahajan r/o
House No.225, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh having PAN3 of 10
21-08-2018 15:14:48 :::
CR Nos.1026 and 3554 of 2016(OM) 4No.AHBPM9164F for the financial years 2011-2012,
2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015.
V) The Nodal Officer, Vodafone,C-130, Phase-VIII,
Industrial Area, Mohali along with complete detail
regarding the range/radius of a tower installed at house
No.227, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh.
VI) The Officer/Official concerned from the record
room of Court of Sh. B.K. Mehta, ADJ, Chandigarh
along with detail of divorce petition filed by Arun
Mahajan having HMA No.79 of 2005 date of decision
24.04.2006 titled as Arun Mahajan Vs. Vidhi Mahajan.
VII) The Officer/Official concerned from the Court of
Sh. K.K. Jain, CJSD-cum-Guardian Judge, Chandigarh
along with record of petition, rejoinder and cross
examination of Vidhi Mahajan in case No.GA32/2014
titled as Vidhi Mahajan Vs. Arun Mahajan which is fixed
for 06.01.2016.
VIII) The Officer/Official concerned from the record
room of Court of Sh. D.K. Chaudhary, JMIC, Jalandhar
along with detail of petition filed by Vidhi Mahajan
having No.R.G.9797/07.03.2005 decided on
29.07.2006 titled as Vidhi Mahajan Vs. Arun Mahajan.
IX) The HR Manager/Official concerned from Religare
Finvest Ltd., A-3,4,5 Sector 125, Noida, U.P along with
detail of attendance of Arun Mahajan for the period
January 2011 to March 2011 and date of relieving of
Arun Mahajan.
4 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 21-08-2018 15:14:48 :::
CR Nos.1026 and 3554 of 2016(OM) 5X) The SHO/Official concerned, Sector-36, Chandigarh
along with record of DDR of missing person/report of
Vidhi Mahajan filed by Smt. Sunita Mahajan w/o Col.
M.L. Mahajan, r/o House No.225, Sector 35-A,
Chandigarh dated 18.05.2004.
[7]. The said application was contested by the respondent
on the premise that the application in question was the third
application for summoning the witnesses. On earlier two
occasions, the prayer for summoning of 7 witnesses and 9
witnesses respectively were allowed by the Courts and the
petitioner has already examined the witnesses. At the fag end of
the case, the present application was filed and that too, after
concealing the factum of earlier applications and orders passed
thereon.
[8]. The Court has also found that earlier applications for
summoning the witnesses were allowed by the Courts.
[9]. Petitioner relied upon statement made by the
respondent in other case for filing the present application as
some disclosure of fact has been made by the respondent
therein. In a way, the evidence led in the other case is sought to
be relied in the present case for summoning 10 more witnesses.
[10]. Petitioner in person vehemently submitted that by way
of summoning the witnesses, petitioner would be in a position to
5 of 10
21-08-2018 15:14:48 :::
CR Nos.1026 and 3554 of 2016(OM) 6
prove his case with reference to knowledge of the respondent
in respect of ex parte decree of divorce and separate living of
the parties since 2011 onwards.
[11]. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer
on the ground that in the application under Order 9 Rule 13
CPC itself the factum of living of the parties together upto
24.05.2014 was specifically mentioned by the respondent.
Thereafter, the petitioner led evidence in the form of 7 witnesses
and 9 witnesses on two occasions. Third application is
conspicuously silent about the factum of earlier applications
which were accepted.
[12]. Learned counsel by referring to HMA No.79 of 2005
stated that earlier petition filed by the petitioner for decree of
divorce was got dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner,
though the respondent was ex parte therein. The present
petition under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage was filed
at the time when the respondent was living with the
husband/petitioner. The factum of earlier petition i.e. HMA No.79
of 2005 which was got dismissed as withdrawn was
conspicuously concealed in the second petition under Section
13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The conduct of the
petitioner was fraudulent from the very beginning. DDR No.24
dated 19.02.2012 got recorded by the petitioner did not contain
6 of 10
21-08-2018 15:14:48 :::
CR Nos.1026 and 3554 of 2016(OM) 7
any fact regarding ex parte decree of divorce, rather reading of
the same would show that the respondent was living in the
matrimonial house.
[13]. After passing of the impugned order, dismissing the
application for summoning the witnesses, evidence of the
petitioner has already been closed vide order dated 04.03.2016
passed by Additional District Judge, Chandigarh against which
CR No.3554 of 2016 has been preferred.
[14]. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted
that the petitioner kept on seeking adjournments in the present
case by alleging that the evidence of the petitioner has been
closed by order of the Court and he intended to file separate
petition to challenge the same. Petitioner got CR No.3554 of
2016 to be heard along with CR No.1026 of 2016.
[15]. I have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties.
[16]. Evidently, the petitioner has already examined 7 and 9
witnesses respectively in his earlier attempts. The said fact has
been concealed in the present application for summoning the
witnesses.
[17]. Perusal of the zimni orders dated 11.02.2016,
15.02.2016, 18.03.2016 and 26.05.2016 would show that no
7 of 10
21-08-2018 15:14:48 :::
CR Nos.1026 and 3554 of 2016(OM) 8
interim order was passed in CR No.1026 of 2016. However the
order dated 30.05.2016 was passed in both the revision
petitions and interim order was made to continue. CR No.3554
of 2016 was ordered to be heard along with CR No.1026 of
2016. In CR No.3554 of 2016, passing of final order was stayed
on 20.05.2016. Thereafter, interim order was made to continue
in subsequent order dated 18.07.2016. On 22.08.2016, it was
noticed that since the main petition was dismissed for non-
prosecution, therefore, interim order was vacated. Thereafter,
the case was adjourned for 09.09.2016, 10.01.2017, 23.02.2017
and 22.03.2017.
[18]. On 31.03.2017, petitioner appeared in Court along with
children as per order dated 23.02.2017 passed by the High
Court. On the basis of proceedings in CRM No.31594 of 2015,
the Court stayed the passing of final order by the trial Court.
Thereafter, the case was adjourned on number of times. The
Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 16.01.2018, recalled the
order dated 31.03.2017, vide which passing of final order by the
trial Court was stayed. The application filed by the petitioner i.e.
CM No.2817-CII of 2018 in CR No.3554 of 2016 for recalling of
the order dated 16.01.2018 was ordered to be taken with the
main case.
[19]. The evidence of the petitioner has already been closed.
8 of 10
21-08-2018 15:14:48 :::
CR Nos.1026 and 3554 of 2016(OM) 9
Petitioner has conspicuously concealed the factum of filing of
two earlier applications for summoning the witnesses. The
conduct of the petitioner in respect of filing of HMA No.79 dated
21.09.2005 and concealment of the same in filing fresh petition
is also attributable to the conduct of the petitioner in not coming
to the Court with clean hands. Petitioner seeks to rely upon
some evidence adduced in collateral proceedings for staking his
claim for summoning the witnesses.
[20]. In my considered opinion, no indulgence can be
granted in CR No.1026 of 2016. It is a settled principle of law
that a person who has concealed the material facts from the
Court does not deserve any such concession. In the light of
stand taken by the respondent in the application under Order 9
Rule 13 CPC and the material brought on record, the Court
would decide the controversy in accordance with law. There is
no error of jurisdiction in the impugned order dated 19.01.2016
passed by Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. CR No.1026 of
2016 is found to be totally devoid of merits and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
[21]. Since CR No.1026 of 2016 stands dismissed on merits,
therefore, no ground is made out to set aside the impugned
order dated 04.03.2016 passed by Additional District Judge,
Chandigarh, vide which evidence of the petitioner was closed by
9 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 21-08-2018 15:14:48 :::
CR Nos.1026 and 3554 of 2016(OM) 10
order, therefore, CR No.3554 of 2016 is dismissed accordingly.
August 16, 2018 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Prince JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 21-08-2018 15:14:48 :::