Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 194 (MEG)

Rogester Manih v. Liviacy Mylliem Umlong

2022-07-21

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Judge, District Council Court, Khasi Hills Shillong in Divorce Suit No. 26 of 2018, whereby an ex parte order dated 08.06.2018 passed against the respondent in the said Divorce Suit was recalled and the case was directed to proceed according to merits. 2. Mr. P. Shati, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had instituted a Divorce Suit and due to the non-appearance of the respondent, the same proceeded ex parte. Thereafter, he submits an ex parte Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2018, as well as the final decree dated 30.07.2019 was passed by the Court below, dissolving the marriage. He further submits that the respondent filed an application before the learned Trial Court seeking restoration of the Divorce Suit, however, the restoration application came to be dismissed for default. Thereafter, he submits the respondent again filed a second application dated 16.04.2019 before the learned Trial Court seeking restoration of the Divorce Suit. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the restoration application that has been filed before the learned Trial Court was not in order, inasmuch as, the respondent should have filed a proper application for restoration of the earlier application for restoration and also explaining the delay that has been caused in filing the said application. 4. Mr. R. Dutta, Legal Aid counsel for the respondent, submits that the respondent could not afford a proper counsel before the Trial Court, and due to the lapses on the part of the appointed Legal Aid counsel who conducted the matter on behalf of the respondent, the matter came to be decided ex parte. As such, she prays that the respondent may be given a chance to contest the Divorce Suit, notwithstanding any other impediment or events that have occurred. 5. After hearing the submissions of parties, it appears that the respondent has suffered due to no fault of her own, and cannot be blamed for the fault of her earlier counsel. 6. As this observation was being made by this Court, Mr. P. Shati, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the Divorce Suit may be restored for consideration, and also prays that as the matter has been pending for a considerable period of time, a time frame may be given to dispose of the same. 7. 6. As this observation was being made by this Court, Mr. P. Shati, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the Divorce Suit may be restored for consideration, and also prays that as the matter has been pending for a considerable period of time, a time frame may be given to dispose of the same. 7. This Court accepts and has noted the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. For the ends of justice and in consideration of the facts as placed and submissions as made by the counsels for the parties, no interference is therefore called for of the impugned order dated 29.08.2019. However, the Trial Court shall make an endeavor to dispose the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of 6(six) months from the date of the appearance of the parties before the said Court. 9. The parties are put to notice and are directed to appear before the learned Additional Judge, District Council Court, Shillong on 10.08.2022. 10. The Registry is directed to transmit back the Lower Court case records immediately. 11. The matter stands closed and is accordingly disposed of.