JUDGMENT :

JAGAUMOKAN REDDY, J.

2. This appeal has been referred to a Bench by our learned brother Qamar Hasan, J., as it raises the following questions:—

(1) Whether the remedy provided by Order 9, rule 13, is a substantive right like an appeal or review or is it a matter which falls within the expression ‘procedure’?

(2) Even assuming that it is a matter of procedure within the meaning of section 5(4) of the Act, whether an appeal is available to the appellant under Order 43, rule 1(d), Civil Procedure Code, by way of analogy?

(3) Whether untrammelled by these technicalities, this is a fit case in which the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution must come to the aid of the appellant?

3. These questions arose out of application by the appellant-wife to set aside an ex parte decree obtained by her husband-respondent under section 5(1)(c) of the Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act (V of 1949) for the dissolution of his marriage with the appellant. In these proceedings a notice of the application under Order 5, rule 9(3) of the Civil Procedure Code (Madras Amendment) was taken out on the 11th March, 1953, but it was returned with a postal endorsement that its acknowle