JUDGMENT

Yorke, J - This is a civil miscellaneous application by Mrs. N.A. Alexander asking me to set aside a final decree for dissolution of marriage between M.S. Jalil and Mrs. M.P. Jalil, daughter of the applicant, on the allegation that throughout the proceedings both for decree nisi and decree absolute Mrs. M P. Jalil, respondent in the divorce suit, was a minor, a fact which was not brought to the notice of the Court by the petitioner M.S. Jalil, with the result that no guardian ad litem was ever appointed on behalf of the respondent. No section of the Code of Civil Procedure was mentioned in this application but learned Counsel has sought to argue it by relying on Section 151 of that Code read with Order 32, Rule 5. It was at first found impossible to serve any notice on Mrs. M.P. Jalil who had been treated by the applicant as an opposite party. She was ultimately served by notice in the newspapers, and on the date of argument put in an appearance and was represented by counsel. At an earlier stage, on 8th May 1939, two issues were framed:

(1) Is this application maintainable by the applicant under Section 151, Civil P.C., on the facts stated therein 1 (2) Is the final decree of this Court dated 23rd November 1938, a nullity for the reason that the respondent Mrs. M.P. Jalil was a minor and was not represented in the suit by a guardian ad litem ?

2. During my absence on leave the matter came up before Bennett J., who passed an order on 11th September in which he remarked that Mrs. M.P. Jalil would attain the age of 18 on 15th September 1939, and that in these circumstances he thought it desirable that notice should issue to her to elect on or before the next date of hearing whether she wishes to proceed with this application under Order 32, Rule 12, Civil P.C. Mrs. M.P. Jalil has now appeared and states through her counsel that she does not wish to proceed with this application herself under the provisions of Order 32, Rule 12. The application therefore stands before me purely as an application made by a third party relying on Section 151, Civil P.C., which it is suggested may be read with Rule 5 of Order 32. That Rule provides that:

Every application to the Court on behalf of a. minor other than an application under Rule 10, Sub-rule (2) shall be made by his next friend or by his guardian for the suit. (2) Every order made in a suit or on any application, before the Court in or by which a minor is in any way concerned or affected, without such minor being represented by a next friend or guardian for the suit, as the case may be, may be discharged, and where the pleader of the party at whose instance such order was obtained knew, or might reasonably have known, the fact of such minority, with costs to be paid by such pleader.

3. I am clearly of opinion that Order 32, Rule 5, Civil P.C, is not applicable except while the proceedings in a suit are still pending. That seems to me to follow from the whole scheme of the Order and is clearly indicated by the wording of the large majority of the Rules. This being so, the sole question for decision is whether in the circumstances that now exist, namely that this Court has made not merely a decree nisi but also a decree absolute for dissolution of a marriage a third party can move this Court to set aside that decree absolute by applying the provisions of Section 151 and whether this Court by the application of that Section or any other Section has jurisdiction to set aside its own decree. The wording of Section 151 is as follows:

Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

4. No doubt the wording of the Section is very wide, and would seem to give very wide powers to the Court, but I am clear that the application of the Section of which I am asked to approve goes far beyond the scope of the Section. It is true that