D B H BANYARD Vs. EFBANYARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On Tuesday last an application was made to me in Chambers on behalf of one Eric Cecil Rowllings that leave might be granted to him to intervene in this suit, that he be made a party as co-respondent, that the cause title be amended, and that the applicant be given liberty to file an answer if so advised.

(2.) For reasons into which I need not now enter I adjourned the application into Court and it now appears that the applicant was served with a notice dated 22 January, 1931 calling upon him to appear in this suit within ten days from the date of service of the notice, and informing him that he was entitled within the time aforesaid to apply for leave to intervene in the cause. A notice in that form was entirely out of order from any point of view, and led to quite unnecessary difficulties.

(3.) The petition is a wife's petition for dissolution of marriage filed under the Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Act on the ground of her husband's adultery. The respondent has filed an answer in which he makes charges against the petitioner of adultery with the present applicant. In his answer the respondent also asks that the applicant be made a party to the suit and that the cause title be amended. He claims damages amounting to Rs. 20,000 and prays that his marriage with the petitioner may be dissolved.