1. This case comes before us, under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act for confirmation of a decree for a dissolution of marriage made by a District Judge.

2. The petitioner alleged in his petition to the District Judge that the respondent had been living in adultery in his (the petitioners) house and that she admitted that she was living the life of a prostitute. He also alleged that he did not know any of the persons with whom adultery had been committed and asked to be excused from making the alleged adulterors, co-respondents.

3. In the course of the proceedings the learned judge on his own initiative made an order making one Alexander a co-respondent In view of the terms of the petition, and in the absence of any application by the petitioner we do not think the learned judge was called on to do this. In our opinion he was certainly in error in not directing the amendment of the petition so that the allegations against the co-respondent might be stated therein. As the petition stands it contains no allegations against the co-respondent. An order for substituted service of "notice" on Alexander was made but he did not appear.

3. In this state of things we think the best