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 PAN

3 of 10
21-08-2018 15:14:48 :::
CR Nos.1026 and 3554 of 2016(OM) 4

No.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) 5

X) 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 :::