Findlay, J C—The petitioner, Charles Henry Smalley, applies for revision of an order of the District Judge, Nagpur, lated 29th August 1927, in Civil Suit No. 3 of the same year. By this order the District Judge declined to issue any sitation or to proceed further on Mr. Smalley's petition for dissolution of marriage. In para. 5 of the petition in the lower Court it was alleged that Mrs. 3malley, the respondent, had commited adultery in Darjeeling in the year 1926 with a person unknown to the petitioner. The learned District Judge further examined counsel for the petitioner with reference to the fact of any so respondent having been cited, and accordingly the said counsel is said to lave stated orally that the petitioner was aware of the alleged adulterer; but mat as he was an officer holding a high position in Government service, he did act wish to disclose it. The learned District Judge held that this reason, as well as the fact that the petitioner having no absolute proof of the adultery, did not wish to cite any particular person as co-respondent, were inadequate ones and he, therefore, declined to proceed further as stated.

2. I have had an affidavit filed by the petitioner in this Court and have also examined him further on oath. Prom the affidavit and the said examination on oath it would appear that there has been some misunderstanding of the real position of the petitioner in this matter. It is now clear apparently that his wife, in the oral confession she is said to have made to him, did not disclose the name of her paramour or paramours. Prom independent enquiry, however, the petitioner has suspicions against two men, one of whom is a Government official, but he has sworn that his reason for not mentioning their names is that, in spite of efforts and enquiry, he has been unable to obtain any substantial proof against either man and he, therefore, is reluctant to take the risk of making them corespondents.

3. It has been suggested on behalf of the present applicant that the remarks of Lindley and Smith, JJ., in Saunders v. Saunders, are applicable in the present case and that the learned District Judge erred in not proceeding further in spite of the failure of the petitioner to name a co-respondent. I do not think, however, that in this matter the Indian Courts have the same dis3refcion to dispense with the naming of a co-respondent as the English Courts have. The three grounds stated in Section 11, Act 4 of 1869 are the only ones on which leave can so be granted to proceed with the petition for dissolution of marriage. The second ground therein stated, viz.: that the name of the alleged adulterer is unknown to the petitioner although he has made due efforts to discover it

will not, it seems to me apply in the circumstances of the present case. The petitioner has apparently knowledge where his wife is now residing, and it is almost inconceivable to suppose that, with due effort and enquiry, he would not be able to discover the name of the alleged adulterer or adulterers. It may be remarked in this connexion that the English statute is more widely worded and the co-respondent may be dispensed with on special grounds to be allowed by the Court. Here, on petitioner's own statement, it is fairly obvious that he has well grounded suspicions against two men and, if he is not prepared to make due enquiry and, if after such enquiries have been made he is not prepared to mention the name of either man or of both, the position would be different; but, as the case at present stands, I cannot, on the materials before me, hold that the name of the alleged adulterer is unknown to the petitioner, although he has made due efforts to discover it.

4. In this view of the case, I am of opinion that the District Judge was justified in declining to proceed further until the petitioner has either satisfied the Court that, he is unable to discover the adulterer's name, or, in the alternative, satisfies the Court that due effort having be