IMPORTANT POINT
Order X CPC 1908 does not in any manner place any bar on the powers of the Court to seek clarification from any party in an appropriate case, at any date earlier than one fixed for framing of issues so as to advance the interest of justice.

JUDGMENT

Brijesh Kumar, J.-Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.10.2000 passed by Delhi High Court dismissing the appeal challenging the order by which appellant s defence was struck of in the proceeding, suit No. 1966 of 1999 pending in Delhi High Court on the Original side.

3. The appellant and the respondent were married on 11.05.1999. Thereafter they went to USA. They do not seem to have pulled on well so much so that the appellant filed a divorce petition in America as early as on 22.7.1999. The notice of the said proceedings was served on the respondent. She however, left America and somehow managed to come back to India. She filed a suit on 6.9.1999 in Delhi High Court being Suit No. 1966 of 1999 impleading the appellant Shri Vikas Agarwal as defendant and praying that a decree be passed declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to live separately, for maintenance amounting to 1500 dollars (Rs.65,250/-) expenses pendantalite etc, and for such other, further orders, directions as the Court would deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, so as to meet the ends of justice. The learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court passed an interim order on 5.11.1999 in the following terms:-

"For the present in the interest of justice, and since no permanent prejudice is likely to be caused to the Defendants if the hearing in divorce case pending in the Superior Court; State of Connecticut, U.S.A. is deferred for a short period, I restrain the Defendant from proceeding further in the Superior Court, State at Connecticut, U.S.A. for a period of thirty days from today."

4. The appellant however, moved an application on 12.11.1999 for recall of the order dated 5.11.1999. The Court was later on informed on 16.12.1999 that decree for divorce had been passed at Connecticut U.S.A. The learned Single Judge, on 9.3.2000 passed an order, directing the defendant to appear in person, under order 10 C.P.C. The defendant preferred an appeal against the Order dated 9.3.2000 before the Division Bench which was withdrawn with a statement that an application will be moved before the learned Single Judge for recall of the order. It will not be necessary to mention about many other applications, which have been moved in that connection from time to time. The fact remains that ultimately by order dated 24.8.2000, the Court struck of the defence of the appellant: The operative part of the order reads as under:-

"It is quite clear that despite several opportunities granted to the defendant to appear before this Court he has resolutely refused to do so. The defence of defendant is therefore, struck of."

5. An appeal preferred against the said order before the Division Bench of the High Court has also been dismissed which order has been impugned in the present appeal.

6. It appears that need to seek clarification from the defendant-appellant arose when it came to the notice of the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court that on 23rd November, 1999 the Court in America passed decree of divorce despite the order of restraint against the defendant passed on 5.11.1999. The Court seems to have doubts if the order passed by it was truly communicated to the American Court since there was no mention at all about that fact in the order passed by the American Court. The appellant also moved an application for seeking exemption from appearing in the Court in Delhi, as he apprehended that on coming to India he may be arrested in pursuance of the proceedings initiated against him under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. By order dated July 3, 2000 the learned Single Judge took care of the same and provided that the defendant would not be arrested in pursuance to any complaint or pending FIR filed by the plaintiff. The defendant was required to appear on August 24, 2000. He again failed to appear in the Court, instead an affidavit of the Attorney of the appellant in Amer