Savita vs Rohit Sharma

Sureshwar Thakur, J

One Rohit Sharma, respondent herein, had instituted HMA Petition bearing No. 86-HMA/3 of 2015, before the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., wherein, he sought dissolution of his marital ties, with, the appellant herein. Appellant herein had through her validly engaged counsel hence instituted a reply to the afore petition. On 6.8.2016, the validly engaged counsel, by the appellant herein, did not record, his appearance before the learned District Judge concerned, and, further when thereat, the case was taken up again, by the learned District Judge concerned, thereat also her validly engaged counsel rather omitted to therebefore record his appearance, hence, he was constrained to order, for the appellant herein being proceeded against ex-parte, (i) and, thereafter he directed qua the matter being listed, on 22.09.2006, for, the recording of the petitioner's ex-parte evidence, (ii) and, after conclusion of the recording, of, ex-parte evidence adduced by the petitioner/respondent herein, he, rendered an ex-parte decree, vis-a-vis, the respondent herein, wherethrough, he ordered for dissolution, of, marital ties inter se the appellant herein, and, the petitioner/respondent herein.

Apparently, the aggrieved appellant herein, had motioned this Court, and, upon CMP No. 7927 of 2016, on 20.9.2016, this Court made an order, hence, staying the making, of, progresses rather by the learned District Judge concerned, upon the afore petition. Visibly, the afore order is made, after, the learned District Judge, making an order on 6.8.2016, for, the appellant herein/respondent, being proceeded against ex-parte, given, her counsel thereat, omitting to record his appearance before the learned District Judge concerned. The afore order has remained unassailed, and, has acquired conclusivity. More so, when the afore order, may acquire an aura of invalidity, given it infringing the mandate of this Court recorded, upon CMP No.7927 of 2016 on 20.09.2016, and, rather when the afore order qua the appellant herein ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte being rendered on 6.8.2016, hence precedes, the, order rendered by this Curt 20.09.2016, hence, the belated endeavour, for, scuttling its vigour, as, made before this Court, is, entirely rudderless.

Be that as it may, given the conclusivity as acquired by the order rendered, on 6.8.2016, and, when apparently the interest of the appellant herein, in the litigation, was watched, and, taken care by her validly engaged counsel, who, rather derelicted, and, omitted to record his presence, on 6.8.2016, before the learned District Judge concerned, (a) hence, the learned counsel for the appellant herein, cannot, contend that for want of valid personal service of the summons, being effectuated, upon the appellant herein, she could not record her appearance, before the learned District Judge concerned, nor she can contend that she was inaptly directed to be proceeded against ex- parte.

Further more, when the counsel for the petitioner does not contend that the learned District Judge, in rendering an ex-parte decree, upon, the afore HMA petition, as willfully disobeyed, the, mandate of this Court pronounced, upon, CMP No. 7927 of 2016 on 20.09.2016, (a) thereupon, for all the afore reasons, the order recorded on 6.8.2016, for want of it being assailed within limitation, merges in the final verdict, and, hence, the extant onslaught cast, by the learned counsel for the appellant in the extant petition, rather cannot be revered.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. The order impugned before this Court is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.