Lipika Mohanty v. Represe

Mr. G.P. Samal, Mr. Advocate CORAM: THE HON'BL N'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINH SINHA AND THE HON HOO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO ORDER 12.07.2024 Order No.

Mr. Pat r. Patnaik, learned advocate appears ears on behalf of appellant, who nt, who was wife in the marriage dissolve ssolved by ex-parte judgment date nt dated 2nd May, 2022. His client had a had applied under rule 13 in ord in order 9, Code of Civil Procedure, 19 re, 1908 for setting aside the jud e judgment. The application was also also dismissed by impugned ord ed order dated 21st April, 2023. He subm submits, his client is aggrieved b eved by both, said order dated 21st April, April, 2023 and ex- parte judgmen dgment dated 2nd May, 2022 of the Famil Family Court.

The app e appeal was registered and number mbered on stamp report that it hat it was filed in time. Reckoning o ing on prescribed period was do as done on basis of said order dated 21 ted 21st April, 2023, dismissing th ing the application. Hence, this appea appeal is directed against said o said order.

Mr. Pat r. Patnaik submits, upon service of s of summons his client appea appeared, to contest the suit. Ho t. However, due unavoidable able circumstances written statement ent could not be filed. Hearing aring of the suit was set ex-parte again against her in year

2017. She a he also subsequently applied to allow allow her to file written statem statement. That application was also re lso rejected. In the circumstances tances, she was not given opportunity t unity to contest the proceeding. A ing. As such impugned order be revers reversed, directing said ex-parte parte judgment dated 2nd May, 2022 as s 2 as set aside.

Mr. Sam r. Samal, learned advocate appears ears on behalf of respondent. H ent. He submits, appellant has seek p eek prefer appeal against disso dissolution of the marriage but she he he herself wanted dissolution of ion of the marriage. Her petition for d for dissolving the marriage wa e was also dismissed for default. S ult. She did not prosecute her te her case. After entering appearance rance in his client’s case, she ch he chose to stay away. Her conduct w duct was correctly appreciated b ated by the Family Court in rejecting th ing the application. There should hould be no interference in appeal.

Perused rused impugned order dated 21st April, April, 2023. It does appear that t that the Family Court gave anxious con us consideration to every aspect spect of appellant’s contentions for setti r setting aside said ex-parte judg judgment dated 2nd May, 2022. The . There has been correct appre appreciation of facts. In the circumstance stances, the Family Court was of as of view that there were gross lache laches on part of appellant. As nt. As such, the application stood d ood dismissed by impugned ord ed order.

We do e do not have any reason to interfere in fere in appeal with said order. Ho er. However, since appellant had also m also mentioned she is aggrieved b eved by said ex-parte judgment dated 2 ted 2nd May, 2022, she is left to eft to find her remedy. That would inclu include explaining delay in her s her seeking the remedy.

The app e appeal is dismissed. (Arindam Sinh Sinha) Judge oo) (M.S. Sahoo) Judge Sks Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 15-Jul-2024 17:52:38