A court to which the business of a court that passed an ex parte decree is transferred has jurisdiction to set aside the decree.

ORDER :- The question that arises in this civil revision petition is whether the Sub Court, Vellore, has got jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte order passed in a petition filed by the petitioner in the Sub Court, Chittoor.

2. The petitioner filed a petition O. P. No. 25 of 1952 in the Sub Court, Chittoor, under S. 5 of the Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act, 1949 for dissolution of his marriage with Ellammal, the respondent herein. On 2-8-1952 the respondent was declared ex parte and an order was passed by the Chittoor Sub Court, directing dissolution of marriage. The parties were residents of Sholinghur, which was originally part of the Chittoor Judicial District, and hence the petition O. P. No. 25 of 1952 was filed in the Chittoor Sub Court. Subsequent to the order passed by that court, Sholinghur came within the jurisdiction of North Arcot Dt, under Act 30 of 1953. On 11-6-1959, the respondent filed an application under S. 150 and O. 9 R. 13 C.P.C. and Sec. 21 of the Central Act 25 of 1955, to set aside the ex parte order of dissolution of marriage dated 2-8-1952. This application was filed and numbered as I. A. No. 300 of 1959 on the file of the Sub Court, Vellore. The petitioner resisted this application contending that it was not maintainable. The Sub Court agreeing with the contention of the petitioner dismissed the application filed by the respondent for setting aside the ex parte order. On appeal the learned District Judge, North Arcot at Vellore held that the application of the respondent was maintainable and reversed the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. It is against the order of the District Judge that the present civil revision petition is filed by the husband (petitioner).

2a. When the order dated 2-8-1952 was passed in O. P. 25 of 1952, Madras Act VI of 1949 (The Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act) was in force. The Central Act XXV of 1955 (The Hindu Marriage Act) came into force long after that date that is on 18-5-1955. Section 4(b) of the Central Act provides that -

"any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act."

It is also necessary to refer to Sec. 29 cl. (3) of that Act which says :

"Nothing contained in this Act shall affect any proceeding under any law for the time being in force for declaring any marriage to be null and void or for annulling or dissolving any marriage or for judicial separation pending at the commencement of this Act, and any such proceedings may be continued and determined as if this Act had not been passed."

The petitioner (husband) contended that since O. P. 25 of 1952 was not pending at the commencement of Act XXV of 1955, the respondent is disentitled to file an application to set aside the ex parte order passed against her under Madras Act VI of 1949. The learned District Judge negatived this contention and held that the respondent would not lose her remedy under O. 9 R. 13 C.P.C. by reason of the repeal of the Madras Act by the Central Act. I am of opinion that the learned District Judge came to the right conclusion. Further, Section 29(3) of the Central Act keeps alive the rights and remedies that have accrued due under the previous Acts in force such as the Madras Act VI of 1949. The Central Act also reiterates the provision contained in the Madras Act that all the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code shall apply and this would indicate that Parliament did not intend to destroy the procedural remedies that the parties litigating under the repealed Acts had acquired. The Central Act also does not contain any provision which debars a person against whom an ex parte order of dissolution of marriage has been passed previously, from taking any proceedings to have that order set aside under O. 9 R. 13, C.P.C.

3. The next question for consideration relates to the jurisdiction of the Vellore Sub Court to entert