The power to set aside ex parte proceedings under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC has to be liberally exercised in order to advance the cause of justice, and the court should consider the totality of facts and circumstances in which the applicant was placed.

A.P.Choudhri, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated May 21, 1988, passed by the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Nawanshahar, exercising the powers of the District Judge under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) allowing husbands petition under Section 9 of the Act against the wife.

2. Gurdeep Singh instituted the petition under Section 9 of the Act on January 17, 1985, against Smt. Kuldip Kaur. At one stage, the petition was decreed after striking off defence of the wife by order dated November 8, 1985. That order was set a side by this Court and the case was remanded to the Trial Court with a direction to take proceedings from the stage the wife was asked to pay costs, non-payment of which resulted in her defence being struck out. The case as transferred from Senior Subordinate Judge, Faridkot, to Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Nawanshahr, district Jalandhar, by order of this Court dated January 30, 1986. Incompliance with the aforesaid orders of this Court, the proceedings were started by the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Nawanshahr, and the case was fixed for respondents evidence for June 10, 1987. Costs were paid on that day and no witness being present the case was adjourned to August 4, 1987, for respondents evidence. On August 4, 1987, the Counsel for Kuldip Kaur made a statement that he had no instructions. The respondent was, therefore, proceeded ex parte and the case was fixed for recording petitioner-husbands evidence for August 26, 1987. Statement of one witness was recorded on August 26, 1987. Statements of two other witnesses were recorded on September 7, 1987, and the case was adjourned to September 21, 1987. An application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings was made by the wife on September 21, 1987. It was stated therein that on June 2, 1987, her brother received serious injuries in a bomb blast near Friends Theatre Jalandhar. He remained admitted to the Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, for a long time and, in fact, his condition remained precarious and the applicant Kuldip Kaur along with other members of the family could not, in the circumstances, instruct her Counsel at Nawanshahr, nor could she attend the case in person. She further stated that unless she was allowed to contest the petition her entire life would be ruined. The application was contested. It was stated that it was barred by limitation and that applicant had absented herself mala fide in order to prolong the proceedings.

3. the learned Trial Court framed the following issues :

1. Whether there are sufficient grounds for the setting aside of the ex parte proceedings ? OPA.

2. Whether the application is within time ? OPA

3. Relief.

By order dated May 13, 1988, the Trial Court dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC with a finding that there was no sufficient ground for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings and also that the application was barred by limitation. On the basis of the evidence of the petitioner, referred to in the earlier part of this order, the main petition under Section 9 of the Act was decreed by judgment and decree dated May 21, 1988. Hence this appeal.

4 The main contention of Mr. Battas, learned Counsel for the wife-appellant, is that she is entitled to assail the order dated May 13 1988 whereby the Trial Court dismissed the appellants application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC Mr. Battas contended that a perusal of the order sheet would shows that the case had all along been hotly contested. He emphasized that the fact that appellants brother was seriously injured in a bomb blast and he remained hospitalised for a long time had not been disputed. In addition to attending to her brother, the appellant had also to attend to her school besides the criminal case at Ludhiana, and in the totality of circumstances she failed to contact her Counsel at Nawanshahr. The Trial Court should have taken a liberal view of