' The petitioner filed a suit for jactitation of marriage against the respondent Mushtaq Ahmad. He was issued summons but did not appear. Hence he was proceeded against ex parte and the suit was decreed. On the 13th of June, 1990, the respondent made an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. The trial Court accepted the application and set aside the decree. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner has brought the present writ petition as no appeal lies against the impugned order. It may be mentioned that in the meantime the petitioner had been married to one Muhammad Rafique.
2. At this stage too the respondent has not appeared after refusal to accept the service. He was served through affixation of the notice on the outer door of his residence. Still he has not turned up.
He is proceeded against ex parte.
3. The trial Court had issued summons to the respondent but he did not care to turn up and it, after satisfying itself in regard to his service of the process, passed the' impugned ex parte decree. There was no reasonable ground to set the same aside and the learned trial Court was wrong in passing the impugned order. Further, the petitioner has meanwhile remarried which fact, in turn, has given rise to a serious social problem. Therefore, the impugned order of the trial Court cannot be sustained. The writ petition is accepted and the order of the trial Court setting aside the ex parte decree is set aside. The petitioner's suit shall stand decreed.