T.D. GOPALKRISHNA PILLAY Vs. SMT. VASANTA PILLAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner husband against an order passed by the District Judge, Durg in M. J.C. No. I9/85, dated 27-4-1985.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner husband filed a suit for divorce against his wife, the N. A., in the Court of District Judge, Durg on 11-7-1984 in which the address of the N. A. was given as c/o Shri S. K. Mudaliar, 760/11/A, Tarbahar Construction Colony, S. E. Rly. Bilaspur. Curiously enough, an application for substituted service also made. It is strange that both the processes were issued simultaneously. It is also strange that the learned District Judge, on 12-7-1984, after hearing the counsel for the plaintiff, also directed issue of process by publication in a newspaper under Order 5, Rule 20 Civil Procedure Code. The learned District Judge, in the impugned order, has observed that the process in the regular course was never served on the N. A. defendant and the Court proceeded to pass an ex-parte decree on the basis of publication as is clear from the order sheet dated 10-8-1984. The learned District Judge, on the basis of the publication in the Daily Deshbandu published from Rajpur, proceeded ex-parte. Thereafter statement of the applicant plaintiff was recorded and an ex-parte decree for divorce was granted by order dated 6-11-1984.

(3.) It appears that later on when the plaintiff petitioner wanted to marry a second time in the month of April, the N. A. wife learnt about it and, therefore, she came and engaged a lawyer and after collecting information, submitted an application under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex-parte decree. She also submitted an application about injunction seeking a direction that the husband was expected to be married on 14-4-1985, but to this, the husband replied that he had already been married on 5-4-1985 and, therefore, the learned Court did not grant an injunction, but after considering the matter, set aside the ex-parte decree passed in favour of the husband, the petitioner.