MILAP CHANDRA, J.—This is a special appeal under Sec. 18, Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 27, 1987 by which he dismissed the miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated 23.11.85 allowing the application of the respondent Chandra kala filed under (X 9, r. 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte decree of divorce passed against her. The facts of the case giving rise to this special appeal may be summarised thus.

2. Appellant Banshidhar filed a petition under Sec. 13, Hindu Marriage Act for divorce against his wife Chandra kala. He obtained an ex-parte decree on 18. 7. 81. On 16. 11. 81, she filed an application under O. 9, r. 13, C.P.C. It was dismissed by the learned District Judge. On appeal, this Court held that Chandrakala was not duly served with the notice and remanded the case for deciding whether the application filed under O. 9, r. 13, C.P.C. was within limitation or not, after necessary inquiry by its judgment dated 12. 9.83, reported in Chandrakala v. Banshidhar, 1983 (2) Divorce & Matrimonial Cases 422. After inquiry, the learned District Judge held the application of Chandrakala within limitation and set aside the ex-parte decree dated 18. 7. 81 by his order dated 23. 11. 85. Thereafter, the appellant filed S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 16/86. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed it by his order dated August 27, 1987 which has been challenged in this Special Appeal.

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the provisions of O. 9, r. 13, C.P. C. are not applicable in the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He relied upon Anjan Kumar Kataki vs. Smt. Minak-shi Sharma (1). There is no force in this contention. Similar objection was raised by him in the said previous Civil Miscellaneous Appeal decided on 12. 9. 83 (Judgment reported in 1983 (2) Divorce & Matrimonial Cases 422) and it was repelled. Admittedly, no special appeal was filed against this judgment dated 12.9.83 by the appellant Banshidhar. It is not denied that he could file an appeal against it. It may also be mentioned here that similar view has been taken in A. K. Pawar v. S. Laxmi A. Pawar (2), Jang Bahadur Syal v. Mukta Syal(3), Veena Rani v. Dharam Paul (4), Daljit Kaur v. Tajendra Singh (5), Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Srivastava v. Saroj Kumari Srivastava (6), Kailash Devi v. Priti Mandal (7) and Ravindra v. Smt. Pratibha. (8).

4. It was next contended by the learned counsel that the appellant has connected second marriage with Smt. Maya on 29.10.83 and a daughter has born on 5.8.1987, these subsequent events have not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge and there is no reference of an application under O. 9, r. 13, C.P.C. in Section 15, Hindu Marriage Act. He relied upon Sribhagwan Srivastava v. Premlata (9). There is no force in these contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, the respondent Chandrakala filed her application under O. 9 r. 13, C.P.C. on 16. 11. 81, the Honble High Court allowed it and remanded the case for further enquiry by its order dated 12. 9. 83, the appellant Banshidhar duly appeared before this Court and hotly contested her appeal. It is thus clear that the appellant contracted the second marriage fully knowing that the appellant Chandra kala is seriously opposing the ex-parte decree of divorce dated 18. 7. 81. It has been observed in Chandra Mohini Srivastava v. Avinash Prasad, (10) as follows:-

"It is true that S. 15 does not in terms apply to a case of an application for special leave to this Court. Even so, we are of opinion that the parly who has won in the High Court and got a decree of dissolution of marriage cannot by marrying immediately after the High Courts decree and thus take away from the losing party the chance of presenting an application for special leave. Even though S. 15 m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document