FAO-345-2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA SHYAM WATI …Appellant Vs. RATTAN SINGH CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Jatinder Dhanda, Advocate Ms. Suman Sagar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Japjit Singh Johal, Advocate for Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. HARKESH MANUJA, J.(ORAL) 1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the order dated 11.01.2010 whereby the application preferred by the appellant Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ex parte judgment and decree dated of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, "the HMA"), was dismissed. 2. Briefly stating solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and three children were born out of the wedlock. The resp under Section 13 of the HMA seeking dissolution of marriage. Since the appellant failed to appear despite service, she was proceeded against ex parte on 18.04.2002 and an ex parte decree of divorce came to be passed against her on 14.06.2002. 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO Date of Decision: 09.07.2026 WATI …Appellant RATTAN SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Jatinder Dhanda, Advocate Ms. Suman Sagar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Japjit Singh Johal, Advocate for Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J.(ORAL) By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the order 11.01.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, whereby the application preferred by the appellant Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking setting aside of the ex parte judgment and decree dated 14.06.2002 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, "the HMA"), was dismissed. Briefly stating, the marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and three children were born out of the wedlock. The respondent under Section 13 of the HMA seeking dissolution of marriage. Since the appellant failed to appear despite service, she was proceeded against ex parte on 18.04.2002 and an ex parte decree of divorce came to be passed on 14.06.2002. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-345-2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.07.2026 WATI …Appellant RATTAN SINGH …Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Japjit Singh Johal, Advocate for By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, whereby the application preferred by the appellant-wife under Order IX , seeking setting aside of the 14.06.2002 passed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, "the HMA"), was dismissed. , the marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and three children ondent-husband instituted a petition under Section 13 of the HMA seeking dissolution of marriage. Since the appellant failed to appear despite service, she was proceeded against ex parte on 18.04.2002 and an ex parte decree of divorce came to be passed 1 By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, Order IX , seeking setting aside of the d under Section 13 , the marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and three children husband instituted a petition under Section 13 of the HMA seeking dissolution of marriage. Since the appellant failed to appear despite service, she was proceeded against ex parte on 18.04.2002 and an ex parte decree of divorce came to be passed SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.20 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-345-2011 (O&M) 3. The appellant thereafter filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on 20.08.2007, alleging that she summons of the divorce petition. It was pleaded that the respondent had manipulated the service Bhan, a water carrier in the school where the and had fraudulently secured the ex parte decree. It was further pleaded that even after the decree of divorce, the respondent continu with her and she came to know about the decree only in July, 2007, when one of her colleagues informed her that the respondent had nominated another lady in his pension records. 4. Upon notice, t denied all allegations of fraud. It was pleaded that the appellant had deliberately refused to accept the summons the application filed after more than five years was hopelessly barred by limitation and no sufficient cause appearance before the matrimonial Court or for condonation of delay. learned Additional District Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, dismissed the application, giving rise to the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective. It the summons and the entire process of service stoo further submitted that the testimony of AW and AW-3 sufficiently established that no summons the appellant. Learned counsel further argues the statement of AW 2011 (O&M) The appellant thereafter filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on 20.08.2007, alleging that she summons of the divorce petition. It was pleaded that the respondent had manipulated the service report by obtaining the signatures of one Suraj Bhan, a water carrier in the school where the and had fraudulently secured the ex parte decree. It was further pleaded that even after the decree of divorce, the respondent continu with her and she came to know about the decree only in July, 2007, when one of her colleagues informed her that the respondent had nominated another lady in his pension records. Upon notice, the respondent contested the application and ied all allegations of fraud. It was pleaded that the appellant had y refused to accept the summons. It was further contended that the application filed after more than five years was hopelessly barred by limitation and no sufficient cause was e appearance before the matrimonial Court or for condonation of delay. learned Additional District Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, dismissed the application, giving rise to the present appeal. arned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective. It is argued that the appellant the summons and the entire process of service stoo further submitted that the testimony of AW-1 Suraj Bhan, AW 3 sufficiently established that no summons . Learned counsel further argues ement of AW-2 by wrongly concluding that the appellant had 2 The appellant thereafter filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on 20.08.2007, alleging that she was never served with the summons of the divorce petition. It was pleaded that the respondent had report by obtaining the signatures of one Suraj Bhan, a water carrier in the school where the appellant-wife was serving, and had fraudulently secured the ex parte decree. It was further pleaded that even after the decree of divorce, the respondent continued to reside with her and she came to know about the decree only in July, 2007, when one of her colleagues informed her that the respondent had nominated he respondent contested the application and ied all allegations of fraud. It was pleaded that the appellant had . It was further contended that the application filed after more than five years was hopelessly barred by established either for non- appearance before the matrimonial Court or for condonation of delay. The learned Additional District Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, dismissed the application, giving rise to the present appeal. arned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the evidence in argued that the appellant was never served with the summons and the entire process of service stood vitiated by fraud. It is 1 Suraj Bhan, AW-2 (appellant) 3 sufficiently established that no summons were ever tendered to that the Court below misread 2 by wrongly concluding that the appellant had 2 The appellant thereafter filed an application under Order IX never served with the summons of the divorce petition. It was pleaded that the respondent had report by obtaining the signatures of one Suraj serving, and had fraudulently secured the ex parte decree. It was further pleaded ed to reside with her and she came to know about the decree only in July, 2007, when one of her colleagues informed her that the respondent had nominated he respondent contested the application and ied all allegations of fraud. It was pleaded that the appellant had . It was further contended that the application filed after more than five years was hopelessly barred by - The learned Additional District Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence led by arned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the evidence in never served with s 2 (appellant) ever tendered to that the Court below misread 2 by wrongly concluding that the appellant had SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.20 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-345-2011 (O&M) knowledge of the itself, whereas in fact, the decree was passed. It i been filed immediately after acquiring knowledge in Ju limitation and therefore, liable to be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supports the impugned order and submits itself was hopelessly barred by limitation, having been instituted after more than five years from the passing of the ex appellant failed to substantiate her plea of acquiring knowledge in July, 2007 by producing any cogent documentary evidence regarding the alleged change of nomination. It is further submitted that the appellant failed to examine the process server, who had effected service, and the testimony of AW-1 Suraj Bhan also his signatures on the summons. Learned counsel further contends that the decree dated 14.06.2002 was independently appealable under of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 availed within the prescribed period, the appellant could not circumvent the statutory scheme by filing a belated application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. 8. The foundation of the appellant' that the respondent procured an ex parte decree by practising fraud in the matter of service is not sufficient. Fraud is required to be pleaded with specificity and pro 2011 (O&M) knowledge of the ex-parte decree passed against her in fact, her statement merely referred to the year in which passed. It is, thus, submitted that been filed immediately after acquiring knowledge in Ju limitation and therefore, liable to be allowed. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supports the impugned order and submits itself was hopelessly barred by limitation, having been instituted after more than five years from the passing of the ex-parte decree. It is argued that the appellant failed to substantiate her plea of acquiring knowledge in July, by producing any cogent documentary evidence regarding the alleged change of nomination. It is further submitted that the appellant failed to examine the process server, who had effected service, and the testimony 1 Suraj Bhan also did not advance her case, as he never disputed his signatures on the summons. Learned counsel further contends that the decree dated 14.06.2002 was independently appealable under of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and once the statutory remedy was not in the prescribed period, the appellant could not circumvent the statutory scheme by filing a belated application under Order IX Rule 13 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the The foundation of the appellant's case rests upon the allegation that the respondent procured an ex parte decree by practising fraud in the of summons upon her. However, mere allegation of fraud is not sufficient. Fraud is required to be pleaded with specificity and pro 3 passed against her in the year 2002 her statement merely referred to the year in which s, thus, submitted that the application having been filed immediately after acquiring knowledge in July, 2007, was within Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supports the impugned order and submits that the application itself was hopelessly barred by limitation, having been instituted after more parte decree. It is argued that the appellant failed to substantiate her plea of acquiring knowledge in July, by producing any cogent documentary evidence regarding the alleged change of nomination. It is further submitted that the appellant failed to examine the process server, who had effected service, and the testimony er case, as he never disputed his signatures on the summons. Learned counsel further contends that the decree dated 14.06.2002 was independently appealable under Section 28 , and once the statutory remedy was not in the prescribed period, the appellant could not circumvent the statutory scheme by filing a belated application under Order IX Rule 13 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the s case rests upon the allegation that the respondent procured an ex parte decree by practising fraud in the . However, mere allegation of fraud is not sufficient. Fraud is required to be pleaded with specificity and proved 3 in the year 2002 her statement merely referred to the year in which the application having ly, 2007, was within Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the that the application itself was hopelessly barred by limitation, having been instituted after more parte decree. It is argued that the appellant failed to substantiate her plea of acquiring knowledge in July, by producing any cogent documentary evidence regarding the alleged change of nomination. It is further submitted that the appellant failed to examine the process server, who had effected service, and the testimony er case, as he never disputed his signatures on the summons. Learned counsel further contends that the Section 28 , and once the statutory remedy was not in the prescribed period, the appellant could not circumvent the statutory scheme by filing a belated application under Order IX Rule 13 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the s case rests upon the allegation that the respondent procured an ex parte decree by practising fraud in the . However, mere allegation of fraud ved SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.20 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-345-2011 (O&M) by cogent and convincing evidence. appellant disputed the service report, she did not examine the process server (Rameshwar), who had allegedly effected service upon her. The best evidence available to challenge the withheld. Equally significant is the testimony of AW appellant herself examined him in support of her case. However, he never denied his signatures appearing on the summons (Ex.A refusal on the part of the appellant. Once the witness signatures on the document, the burden heavily shifts upon the appellant to establish that the endorsement itself was fabricated or procured by fraud. No such evidence learned Court below committed no error in holding that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption attached to the official acts performed during the course of judicial proceedings. Papayya Sastry v. observed that although a judgment obtained by fraud is a nullity, the burden to establish fraud is extremely heavy and the same must be proved by clear, cogent and convincing evidence. Mere suspicion or bald allegations cannot take the place of legal proo failed to discharge such burden 9. Even otherwise, the appeal is liable to fail on the ground the application filed by the appellant in terms of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was barred by limitation. 14.06.2002, whereas the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC came to be instituted only on Under Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963 2011 (O&M) by cogent and convincing evidence. The record reveals that although the appellant disputed the service report, she did not examine the process server (Rameshwar), who had allegedly effected service upon her. The best evidence available to challenge the service was thus consciously Equally significant is the testimony of AW appellant herself examined him in support of her case. However, he never denied his signatures appearing on the summons (Ex.A the part of the appellant. Once the witness signatures on the document, the burden heavily shifts upon the appellant to establish that the endorsement itself was fabricated or procured by fraud. No such evidence was brought on record. In thes learned Court below committed no error in holding that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption attached to the official acts performed during the course of judicial proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh observed that although a judgment obtained by fraud is a nullity, the burden to establish fraud is extremely heavy and the same must be proved by clear, cogent and convincing evidence. Mere suspicion or bald allegations cannot take the place of legal proof. In the present case, the appellant has failed to discharge such burden. Even otherwise, the appeal is liable to fail on the ground the application filed by the appellant in terms of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was limitation. Admittedly, the ex parte decree was passed on , whereas the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC came to be instituted only on 20.08.2007, after a delay of more than five years. Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963 4 The record reveals that although the appellant disputed the service report, she did not examine the process server (Rameshwar), who had allegedly effected service upon her. The service was thus consciously Equally significant is the testimony of AW-1 Suraj Bhan. The appellant herself examined him in support of her case. However, he never denied his signatures appearing on the summons (Ex.A-1), which recorded the part of the appellant. Once the witness admitted his signatures on the document, the burden heavily shifts upon the appellant to establish that the endorsement itself was fabricated or procured by fraud. In these circumstances, the learned Court below committed no error in holding that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption attached to the official acts performed during the The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.V. Government of Andhra Pradesh 2007 (4) SCC 221, observed that although a judgment obtained by fraud is a nullity, the burden to establish fraud is extremely heavy and the same must be proved by clear, cogent and convincing evidence. Mere suspicion or bald allegations f. In the present case, the appellant has Even otherwise, the appeal is liable to fail on the ground that the application filed by the appellant in terms of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was ex parte decree was passed on , whereas the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC came to , after a delay of more than five years. Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation for filing an 4 The record reveals that although the appellant disputed the service report, she did not examine the process server (Rameshwar), who had allegedly effected service upon her. The service was thus consciously 1 Suraj Bhan. The appellant herself examined him in support of her case. However, he never 1), which recorded his signatures on the document, the burden heavily shifts upon the appellant to establish that the endorsement itself was fabricated or procured by fraud. e circumstances, the learned Court below committed no error in holding that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption attached to the official acts performed during the A.V. 2007 (4) SCC 221, observed that although a judgment obtained by fraud is a nullity, the burden to establish fraud is extremely heavy and the same must be proved by clear, cogent and convincing evidence. Mere suspicion or bald allegations f. In the present case, the appellant has that the application filed by the appellant in terms of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was ex parte decree was passed on , whereas the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC came to , after a delay of more than five years. , the limitation for filing an SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.20 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-345-2011 (O&M) application to set aside an ex parte decree is thirty days from the date of the decree or, where summons were not duly served, from the date of knowledge of the decree. assertion that she acquired knowledge only in respondent had changed the nominee in his pension records were produced. document from the service department or pension records was produced to substantiate such plea was examined. The alleged change of nominee remained completely unproved. Once the very basis of the plea regarding delayed knowledge remained unsupported by any documentary evidence, the learned Court below rightly concluded that the appellant failed to establish that the application was within limitation. 10. Furthermore, the contention that the learned Court below misread the statement of AW that there was some would not materially affect the outcome of the case. The dismissal of the application is not founded solely upon the said statement but upon the cumulative appreciation of the entire evidence, particula signatures of AW server and the complete absence of documentary evidence regarding the alleged acquisition of knowledge in July, 2007. 11. There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves consideration. The decree dated 14.06.2002 was passed under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Marriage Act provides a statutory remedy of appeal against every de 2011 (O&M) ation to set aside an ex parte decree is thirty days from the date of the decree or, where summons were not duly served, from the date of knowledge of the decree. The entire case of the appellant rests upon her assertion that she acquired knowledge only in respondent had changed the nominee in his pension records However, except for a bald assertion, not a single document from the service department or pension records was produced to substantiate such plea. No official witness from the concerned department was examined. The alleged change of nominee remained completely Once the very basis of the plea regarding delayed knowledge remained unsupported by any documentary evidence, the learned Court low rightly concluded that the appellant failed to establish that the application was within limitation. Furthermore, the contention that the learned Court below misread the statement of AW-2 also deserves rejection. that there was some ambiguity in one sentence of the deposition, the same would not materially affect the outcome of the case. The dismissal of the application is not founded solely upon the said statement but upon the cumulative appreciation of the entire evidence, particula signatures of AW-1 on the summons, the non server and the complete absence of documentary evidence regarding the alleged acquisition of knowledge in July, 2007. There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves consideration. The decree dated 14.06.2002 was passed under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. provides a statutory remedy of appeal against every de 5 ation to set aside an ex parte decree is thirty days from the date of the decree or, where summons were not duly served, from the date of The entire case of the appellant rests upon her assertion that she acquired knowledge only in July, 2007 because the respondent had changed the nominee in his pension records of respondent However, except for a bald assertion, not a single document from the service department or pension records was produced to . No official witness from the concerned department was examined. The alleged change of nominee remained completely Once the very basis of the plea regarding delayed knowledge remained unsupported by any documentary evidence, the learned Court low rightly concluded that the appellant failed to establish that the Furthermore, the contention that the learned Court below 2 also deserves rejection. Even assuming ambiguity in one sentence of the deposition, the same would not materially affect the outcome of the case. The dismissal of the application is not founded solely upon the said statement but upon the cumulative appreciation of the entire evidence, particularly the admitted 1 on the summons, the non-examination of the process server and the complete absence of documentary evidence regarding the alleged acquisition of knowledge in July, 2007. There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves consideration. The decree dated 14.06.2002 was passed under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Section 28 of the Hindu provides a statutory remedy of appeal against every decree 5 ation to set aside an ex parte decree is thirty days from the date of the decree or, where summons were not duly served, from the date of The entire case of the appellant rests upon her July, 2007 because the of respondent However, except for a bald assertion, not a single document from the service department or pension records was produced to . No official witness from the concerned department was examined. The alleged change of nominee remained completely Once the very basis of the plea regarding delayed knowledge remained unsupported by any documentary evidence, the learned Court low rightly concluded that the appellant failed to establish that the Furthermore, the contention that the learned Court below Even assuming ambiguity in one sentence of the deposition, the same would not materially affect the outcome of the case. The dismissal of the application is not founded solely upon the said statement but upon the rly the admitted examination of the process server and the complete absence of documentary evidence regarding the There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves consideration. The decree dated 14.06.2002 was passed under the Section 28 of the Hindu cree SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.20 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-345-2011 (O&M) passed under the Act. Admittedly, the appellant never questioned the decree by availing the appellate remedy contemplated under the Act and permitted the decree to attain finality for more than five years. Though non filing of an appeal under Section Order IX Rule 13 CPC parte decree by taking recourse to the latter remedy, it becomes necessary to examine whether the statutory requirements prescribed under Order IX Rule 13 stand satisfied. 12. The Supreme Court in 2005 (1) SCC 787, questioned either by filing an appeal or by moving an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, other. At the same time, the Court clarified that an application under Order IX Rule 13 can succeed only upon proof that summons were not duly served or that the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause fro appearing when the suit was called for hearing. appellant was legally entitled to invoke Order IX Rule 13 CPC despite not preferring an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the burden nevertheless remained upon her conditions embodied therein. 12.1 Similarly, in the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the expression "sufficient cause" occurring in Order IX Rule 13 CPC must receive a strict construction and the burden lies upon the applicant to establish circumstances beyond his or her control which prevented appearanc 2011 (O&M) passed under the Act. Admittedly, the appellant never questioned the decree by availing the appellate remedy contemplated under the Act and permitted the decree to attain finality for more than five years. Though non filing of an appeal under Section 28 does not, by itself, bar recourse to Order IX Rule 13 CPC. Since the appellant has chosen to assail the decree by taking recourse to the latter remedy, it becomes necessary to examine whether the statutory requirements prescribed under Order IX Rule 13 stand satisfied. The Supreme Court in Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar 2005 (1) SCC 787, has authoritatively held that an ex parte decree can be questioned either by filing an appeal or by moving an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, and that both remedies are independent of each other. At the same time, the Court clarified that an application under Order IX Rule 13 can succeed only upon proof that summons were not duly served or that the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause fro appearing when the suit was called for hearing. appellant was legally entitled to invoke Order IX Rule 13 CPC despite not preferring an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the burden nevertheless remained upon her to strictly satisfy the statutory conditions embodied therein. Similarly, in Parimal v. Veena @ Bharti the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the expression "sufficient cause" occurring in Order IX Rule 13 CPC must receive a strict construction and the burden lies upon the applicant to establish circumstances beyond his or her control which prevented appearance before the Court. It was further 6 passed under the Act. Admittedly, the appellant never questioned the decree by availing the appellate remedy contemplated under the Act and permitted the decree to attain finality for more than five years. Though non- 28 does not, by itself, bar recourse to . Since the appellant has chosen to assail the ex- decree by taking recourse to the latter remedy, it becomes necessary to examine whether the statutory requirements prescribed under Order IX Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar, has authoritatively held that an ex parte decree can be questioned either by filing an appeal or by moving an application under and that both remedies are independent of each other. At the same time, the Court clarified that an application under Order IX Rule 13 can succeed only upon proof that summons were not duly served or that the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing. Thus, although the appellant was legally entitled to invoke Order IX Rule 13 CPC despite not preferring an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the to strictly satisfy the statutory Parimal v. Veena @ Bharti, 2011 (3) SCC 545, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the expression "sufficient cause" occurring in Order IX Rule 13 CPC must receive a strict construction and the burden lies upon the applicant to establish circumstances beyond his or e before the Court. It was further 6 passed under the Act. Admittedly, the appellant never questioned the decree by availing the appellate remedy contemplated under the Act and - 28 does not, by itself, bar recourse to - decree by taking recourse to the latter remedy, it becomes necessary to examine whether the statutory requirements prescribed under Order IX , has authoritatively held that an ex parte decree can be questioned either by filing an appeal or by moving an application under and that both remedies are independent of each other. At the same time, the Court clarified that an application under Order IX Rule 13 can succeed only upon proof that summons were not duly m Thus, although the appellant was legally entitled to invoke Order IX Rule 13 CPC despite not preferring an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the to strictly satisfy the statutory 2011 (3) SCC 545, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the expression "sufficient cause" occurring in Order IX Rule 13 CPC must receive a strict construction and the burden lies upon the applicant to establish circumstances beyond his or e before the Court. It was further SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.20 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-345-2011 (O&M) observed that negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot constitute sufficient cause for setting aside an ex parte decree. 12.2 Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds ingredients contemplated under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. Neither able to disprove the service of summons by producing convincing evidence, nor she established sufficient cause explaining her non appearance before the learned trial Court. Equally, the plea that knowledge of the decree was acquired only in July, 2007 remained unsupported by any contemporaneous documentary evidence. In these circumstances, the learned Court below rightly declined to exer in favour of the appellant. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to establish summons in the divorce proceedings were not duly se the ex-parte decree dated 14.06.2002 had been obtained by practicing fraud. Equally she has failed to substantiate her plea that knowledge of the decree was acquired only in July, 2007 so as to save limitation under Article 123 of the for more than five years, the appellant was required to strictly satisfy the ingredients of Order IX Rule 13 CPC, which she has failed to do. No ground has been made out for interference with th passed by the learned Court below. 14. Consequently, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, does not call for any 2011 (O&M) observed that negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot constitute sufficient cause for setting aside an ex parte decree. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the appellant failed to establish the statutory ingredients contemplated under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. Neither able to disprove the service of summons by producing convincing evidence, nor she established sufficient cause explaining her non arance before the learned trial Court. Equally, the plea that knowledge of the decree was acquired only in July, 2007 remained unsupported by any contemporaneous documentary evidence. In these circumstances, the learned Court below rightly declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the appellant. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to establish summons in the divorce proceedings were not duly se parte decree dated 14.06.2002 had been obtained by practicing fraud. Equally she has failed to substantiate her plea that knowledge of the decree was acquired only in July, 2007 so as to save limitation under Limitation Act. Having allowed the decree to attain finality for more than five years, the appellant was required to strictly satisfy the ingredients of Order IX Rule 13 CPC, which she has failed to do. No ground has been made out for interference with th passed by the learned Court below. Consequently, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed. The order dated 11.01.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, does not call for any 7 observed that negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot constitute sufficient cause for setting aside an ex parte decree. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present that the appellant failed to establish the statutory ingredients contemplated under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. Neither was she able to disprove the service of summons by producing convincing evidence, nor she established sufficient cause explaining her non- arance before the learned trial Court. Equally, the plea that knowledge of the decree was acquired only in July, 2007 remained unsupported by any contemporaneous documentary evidence. In these circumstances, the cise its discretionary jurisdiction In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to establish either that the summons in the divorce proceedings were not duly served upon her or that parte decree dated 14.06.2002 had been obtained by practicing fraud. Equally she has failed to substantiate her plea that knowledge of the decree was acquired only in July, 2007 so as to save limitation under Having allowed the decree to attain finality for more than five years, the appellant was required to strictly satisfy the ingredients of Order IX Rule 13 CPC, which she has failed to do. No ground has been made out for interference with the well-reasoned order Consequently, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is . The order dated 11.01.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, does not call for any interference and is 7 observed that negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot constitute Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present that the appellant failed to establish the statutory as she able to disprove the service of summons by producing convincing - arance before the learned trial Court. Equally, the plea that knowledge of the decree was acquired only in July, 2007 remained unsupported by any contemporaneous documentary evidence. In these circumstances, the cise its discretionary jurisdiction In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the either that the rved upon her or that parte decree dated 14.06.2002 had been obtained by practicing fraud. Equally she has failed to substantiate her plea that knowledge of the decree was acquired only in July, 2007 so as to save limitation under Having allowed the decree to attain finality for more than five years, the appellant was required to strictly satisfy the ingredients of Order IX Rule 13 CPC, which she has failed to do. No reasoned order Consequently, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is . The order dated 11.01.2010 passed by the learned interference and is SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.20 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-345-2011 (O&M) accordingly affirmed disposed of. 09.07.2026 sanjay Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2011 (O&M) affirmed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 8 . Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 8 . Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.20 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document