Honble TATIA, J.–Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the impugned order.

(2). This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5.10.95 passed by the court of District Judge, Churu in Civil Misc. Case No. 22/94 whereby the trial court allowed the application for divorce of the petitioner-respondent against the appellant and granted the decree for divorce.

(3). Brief facts of the case are that in present divorce petition, which was filed before the court below the learned counsel for the appellant filed the power on 17.04.1995. On that day the trial court fixed the date of reconciliation between the parties on 20.05.1995. On that day both the parties were absent, therefore, matter was adjourned and fixed on 15.07.1995 for reconciliation. The non-petitioner-appellant did not turn up. The matter was again adjourned and date was fixed on 26.08.1995. On 26.08.1995 learned counsel for the appellant-non-petitioner pleaded no instruction. The respondent was present in court and non-petitioner-appellant did not come in court on 26.08.1995. Therefore, the trial court passed the order to proceed ex-parte. Therefore, the evidence was recorded by the trial court and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent passed the impunged decree for divorce on 5.10.95.

(4). Against the above ex-parte decree dated 5.10.95, the appellant presented the appeal before this Court on 10th Nov., 1995. In this appeal the appellant straightway challenged the judgment and decree passed by the court below on merits and also submitted that the appellants advocate did not inform appellant about pleading no instruction, before pleading no instruction or after pleading no instruction. It is also submitted in the memo of appeal that appellant duly sent the written statement or reply, but in the memo of appeal itself admitted that ``it never reached the concerned hand. In addition to above, it is also mentioned in the memo of appeal that Nandlal, SHO was at Bikaner managed that advocates letter should not reach and she was not given any compensation or maintenance and as such, in her absence, due to ignorance the decree has been passed ex-parte.

(5). In this appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellants advocate did not inform appellant about the passing of the decree and also did not inform appellant before pleading no instruction. Therefore, the decree of the divorce deserves to be set aside as have been passed without there being any opportunity of hearing to the appellant-non-petitioner.

(6). I perused the record and the facts mentioned in the memo of appeal alongwith grounds taken by the appellant and also perused the evidence produced by the respondent and the events, which took place before the court below.

(7). Learned counsel for the appellant is not in position to state whether any application for setting aside ex-parte decree was moved before the court below or not. Be that as it may be, the fact remains is that, in present appeal the appellant has challenged the validity of the decree itself instead of challenging the order of proceeding ex-parte. Though she has raised an objection that appellants advocate did not inform appellant about pleading no instruction before or after for which I perused the contention raised by the appellant in the memo of appeal, which is as under :-

``(xv) that the Advocate of the appellant never informed the appellant that he has pleaded no instruction neither before or after the incident though the appellant duly send the written statement or reply put it never reached the concerned hand and the Nandlal SHO, was at Bikaner managed that Advocates letter should not reach and she was not given any compensation or maintenance and as such in her absence due to ignorance the decree has been passed exparte and the same deserves to be set aside and appellant is poor and cannot maintain her and her female child but the learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document