IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 196 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE N.N.MATHUR ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? -------------------------------------------------------------- GRACE BASIL CHRISTIE @ DAMINI D/O MADHUKAR KESHAVLAL TRIVEDI Versus BASIL EPHRAIM CHRISTIE -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR PK PANCHOLI for Petitioner -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE N.N.MATHUR Date of decision: 17/02/98 ORAL JUDGEMENT R U L E. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. For the purpose of disposal of this Revision Application, notice to the respondent is not given for the reason that the notices issued by the Court below have not been served on him. In fact, the question involved in the present application is whether in the facts of the case, substituted service can be ordered ? 2. It appears that the petitioner lady filed petition for divorce in the year 1996 under the provisions of Indian Divorce Act. The notices have not been served on the respondent perhaps for the reason that the respondent is residing abroad and avoiding the service. In view of this, the petitioner applied for substituted service under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC. In my view, if a person has not permanently left the country, provisions of Order 5 Rule 25 are not attracted. In view of thihs, the learned Judge has committed material illegality in exercising jurisdiction in proceeding on the assumption that the defendant is residing permanently out of India. In view of the matter, it is a fit case in which the learned Judge ought to have permitted the service of the defendant by substituted service. 3. In view of the aforesaid, this Revision Application is allowed. Order dated 14.10.1997 passed by the thrid Extra Asstt.Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) is quashed and set aside. The application below Exh.22 is granted. The trial Court will pass appropriate order for substituted services. Rule made absolute. D.S. permitted. 18.2.98 [N N Mathur, J] msp.