2025:HHC:26579 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 228 of 2020 Decided on : 07.08.2025 Ajay Thakur. …Petitioner Versus Sarita Thakur. …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Arush Matlotia, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Deepmala, Advocate, vice Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “That the present petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 06.12.2019, passed by the learned District Judge, Family Court Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in C.M.P. No.14/19/18 Registration No. 552/18, Instituted on 28-02-2017, Titled as Sarita Versus Ajay, whereby the application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex-parte 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:26579 decree in HMP No.52/2015 is allowed, whereby the ex- parte judgment and decree in petition No.52/2015 dated:02-09-2016 is set aside, may very kindly be set aside, as prayed for, in the interest of justice and fair play. Any other or further order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the present petitioner in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2019, passed by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Mandi, H.P. in terms whereof an application filed under Order XI, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the ex-parte decree, has been allowed by the learned Court below. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Family Court erred in allowing the application as it failed to appreciate the contradictions in the application as well as the stand taken by the petitioner viz-a-viz the contention of the counsel, however, this Court is of the considered view that as the order just confers a right upon the respondent herein to contest a petition 3 2025:HHC:26579 that has been filed against her under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on merit, it would indeed be in the interest of justice not to interfere with the impugned order. 4. 4. It is evident from the order passed by the learned Family Court that what weighed with the learned Family Court was that the learned counsel, who was appearing for the respondent, did not apprise the respondent about the orders that were passed by the learned Court below in terms whereof she stood proceeded against ex-parte. The very fact that the respondent filed an application under Order XI, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for setting aside of the ex- parte decree demonstrates that she is keen to contest the petition, otherwise she would not have filed said application. 5. Accordingly, in the light of the above observations and more so in the interest of the respondent, who happens to be the wife in this case, who suffered an ex-parte decree under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, this Court is not interfering with the order under challenge, so as to allow the learned Family Court to decide the petition on merit afresh after hearing the respondent. 4 2025:HHC:26579 6. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Parties through learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Family Court on 25.08.2025 and learned Family Court is called upon to make an endeavour to decide the case finally on or before 30.09.2025. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 07, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)