I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) The appellant-wife makes a grouse of the ex parte proceedings resulting in a decree of divorce against her. The facts which deserve to be noticed are as follows.
(2.) During the course of proceedings initiated by the respondent-husband under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (for short, the Act) while he was making a statement on April 27, 1979, as a witness in support of his claim he sought to produce certain letters alleged to have been written by the appellant. As this mode of proof was objected to by the appellant's counsel, the trial Court adjourned the case to May 7, 1979 with the direction to her counsel to produce her on the that day to admit or deny the authorship of those letters. The appellant, however, did not appear on May 7, 1979. Her counsel Shri Sethi made a statement before the Court that he had written a letter to the appellant under postal certificate and had not heard anything in reply. He also pleaded that he had 'not received any instructions from the appellant. However, on a 'request by him, the Court again adjourned the case to May 19, 1979 for. the said purpose subject to payment of Rs. 110.00 as costs. The Court also specifically mentioned in the order that in case the wife-appellant failed to appear on the adjourned date of hearing i. e. May 19, 1979, she will be proceeded against ex parte. Once again on May 19, 1979 she failed to turn up at the time of hearing. Her counsel Shri Sethi informed the Court that though he had written a registered letter to his client i.e, the appellant yet had failed to receive any reply or any further instructions in the matter. Thus the Court chose to proceed ex parte against the appellant and passed ex parte decree for divorce.
(3.) On the same day, i. e. on May 19, 1979, the appellant filed an application through her counsel for the setting aside the ex parte proceeding against her though with no specific prayer that the ex parte decree of divorce against her may also be set aside. In this application she explained that she could not attend the Court on the earlier two dates on account of her illness and even on that day i. e. May 19, 1979, she could not reach the Court in time because she had missed the connecting train at Sadallpur and thus could not reach the Court at Hissar before 10 A.M. Admittedly by that time the proceeding in her case were over which as already indicated had resulted in the passing of the decree for divorce against her. The respondent-husband contested the application and as a result the lower Court settled the following two issues for trial: "1. Whether there is sufficient cause to set aside the order dated 19-5-79 passed by Shri S. K. Jain to proceed ex parte against the petitioner ? 2. Whether the application to set aside order to proceed ex-parte has become infructuous because of the passing of ex parte decree itself ?;