SANGEET LODHA,J. - (1.) This petition is directed against order dated 5.1.16 passed by the Additional District Judge, Parbatsar in Case No. 68/05, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner under Order 9, Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC, has been dismissed.
(2.) The facts relevant are that the respondent filed an application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ( for short "the Act") seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The application was being contested by the petitioner herein by filing a reply thereto. The reply filed on behalf of the petitioner was taken on record on 6.10.15 and the matter was adjourned to 8.12.15 for framing of issues. On 8.12.15, the trial court framed the issues but since nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner, the matter was proceeded ex parte against him. On the next date of hearing i.e. 5.1.16 an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. On the same day, the application was rejected by the trial court observing that no good cause is assigned by the petitioner herein for his previous non appearance. Hence, this petition.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the court below has seriously erred in observing that no explanation or reason for non appearance of the petitioner or his counsel on the date fixed is assigned. Learned counsel submitted that it was specifically pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the counsel appearing on his behalf could not appear because he was somewhere else in the court and could not inform the petitioner to attend the date of hearing and thus, ignoring the plausible reason assigned, the court below has seriously erred in rejecting the application preferred. Learned counsel submitted that the matter is at the preliminary stage and therefore, rejection of the application preferred by the court taking the technical view of the matter is not justified.;