JUDGMENT 1. These are two applications made by the respondent and the co-respondent in a Divorce Suit for setting aside an exparte decree of this Court, dated April 20, 1961, confirming a decree nisi made by the Additional District Judge, Fifth Court, 24-Parganas, dissolving the marriage between the petitioner Atindra Math Biswas and the respondent Amita Biswas. By a judgment, dated April 30, 1960, the Additional District Judge directed that the marriage between the two parties be dissolved subject to confirmation by this Court. 2. Thereafter a Reference was made to this Court under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. Notices of the Reference were directed to be served by the Registrar of this Court. In pursuance of the aforesaid order three notices were issued, one upon the petitioner Atindra Nath Biswas, another upon the respondent Amita Biswas, and the third one upon the co-respondent Balraj Marchanda. The addresses at which the registered notices were sent were the addresses given by the parties in the decree for the purpose of service of notices. All the notices bear the postal stamp of July 30, 1960. The notice upon the petitioner was accepted by him, and he actuality appeared through an Advocate at the hearing before us. Notices upon the respondent Amita Biswas and the co-respondent Balraj Marchanda were returned by the serving peon with the remark "left". Thereafter the Registrar directed substituted service of the notices upon the respondent and the co-respondent, and it appears from the process-server's report that one copy of the notices in each case was hung in front of the door of the respective addresses as given in the decree of the Lower Court and the other copy at the Lower Court premises. In spite of these two attempts for service of notice, the respondent and the co-respondent did not appear before us at the time of hearing though they appeared in the Trial Court and hotly contested the suit in the Court of the Additional District Judge. On May 18, 1981, the respondent and the co-respondent filed two separate applications for setting aside the exparte decree of this Court by which the decree nisi of the Trial Court was confirmed. On May 18, 1981, the respondent and the co-respondent filed two separate applications for setting aside the exparte decree of this Court by which the decree nisi of the Trial Court was confirmed. In the petition of Amita Biswas she states that she is still residing at premises No. 218, Lower Circular Road, Calcutta the date of the affidavit being May 4, 1961, and she farther states that on April 20, 1961, she was confined to bed at a nursing home prior to certain operations advised by her medical practitioner. The co-respondent in his petition states that from before the termination of the proceeding in the Court of the Additional District Judge he had left his original residence and had shifted to a new address at Titagarh. In the decree of the Trial Court, however, his old address was not altered, and it is stated in the decree that the address was given by him for the purpose of service of notice. 3. We have first of all to consider whether the statements made in the two petitions are sufficient to induce us to set aside the exparte decree, and 1 am bound to say that we are not prepared to do that. 4. I have already said that the peon returned the notice upon Amita Biswas with the remark "left" on August 1, 1960. In the petition filed by Amila Biswas which is not affirmed by herself, but by one of her friends, it is stated that Amita Biswas was residing at premises No. 218 Lower Circular Road on the date of the affidavit, i.e., an May 4, 1961, and it is further stated that on April 20, 1961, Amita Biswas was confined to bed at a nursing horns. There is no statement that Amita Biswas was residing at premises No. 218, Lower Circular Road on the date on which the peon made his endorsement, i. e., on August 1, 1960. In view of the fact that the original petition is not affirmed by Amita Biswas, and in view of the further fact that there is no statement in the original petition that Amita Biswas was residing at 218 Lower Circular Road, on August 1, 1960, I am not prepared to attach any importance to the statements made in the petition that the endorsement of the postal peon is false. With regard to the application of the co-respondent Balraj Marchanda, it is enough to state that although he states in his application that he changed his original address during the pendency of the proceeding in the Trial Court he did not take care to communicate the change of address either to the Court below or to this Court, and the Registrar was perfectly right in directing registered notice to issue at his address as recorded in the decree nisi. 5. The real ground upon which we are inclined to dismiss both these applications is that neither the respondent nor the co-respondent can claim, as a matter of right, that notices: of the proceeding under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act should have been served upon them. Both the applicants claim relief under Order 9, r. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure which proceeds on the assumption that all the provisions of Order 5 of the Code apply to a proceeding for confirmation under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act does not lay down any procedure to be followed by this Court for confirming a decree nisi made by the Trial Court. All that it says is that cases for confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage shall be heard by a Court composed of three Judges, and that no decree shall be confirmed till after the expiration of such time, not less than six months from the date of pronouncing thereof, as the High Court by general or special order from time to time directs. Rule 16 of Chapter II, part I of the Appellate Side Rules of this Court merely states that time within which a decree of a District Court may not under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act be confirmed shall be six months from the pronouncing thereof. This Rule also does not require any notice to be served upon the parties in a Reference under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. 6. A practice has, however, grown up in this Court of serving notices under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. As far as we have been able to ascertain, in the year 1951, in Divorce Suit No. 16 of 1960 of the Court of the Third Extra Additional District Judge of 24-Parganas (Mrs. 6. A practice has, however, grown up in this Court of serving notices under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. As far as we have been able to ascertain, in the year 1951, in Divorce Suit No. 16 of 1960 of the Court of the Third Extra Additional District Judge of 24-Parganas (Mrs. Dorothy Shephard v. Edward Thomas Shephard) the notices of Reference under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act were issued upon the parties by registered post. The notice upon the petitioner was returned undelivered by the postal authorities with the remark "not known. Thereafter the matter was placed before a Bench consisting of K. C. Das Gupta, B. K. Guha and P. N. Mookerjee, JJ. Who were pleased to order that substituted service be effected upon the person who could not be served by registered post. No reason was given by their Lordships for this order which consists of only one sentence. This order of the Bench was taken by the then Registrar as a precedent for effecting substituted service of notices in cases where service by registered post was not effective. On January 30, 1951, the then Registrar recorded an order to the following effect: "In view of the copy of the order at flag 22 (presumably referring to the order in Divorce Suit No. 16 of 1950) which may be regarded as a precedent, let notice be issued in all similar cases in future. The cost of service will, of course, be borne by Government. " Following this order of the then Registrar, this practice is being followed by this Court, and it has been followed in the present case. 7. Strictly speaking, 0.5, r. 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure is hardly applicable to a case like this, because 0.5, r. 20 requires the Court to be satisfied that there is reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service or for other reasons service Cannot be effected in the ordinary way. In the absence of any materials furnished by the parties before the Court it is impossible for the Court to come to any conclusion that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that for other reasons summons cannot be served in the ordinary way. In the absence of any materials furnished by the parties before the Court it is impossible for the Court to come to any conclusion that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that for other reasons summons cannot be served in the ordinary way. However that may be, the practice that has remained in force for well over a decade has certainly acquired some sanctity, and we are not prepared to say anything against that practice, but it must be clearly understood that whether it is a notice by registered post, or a notice by substituted service under Order 5, r. 20, such notice is issued by the Court in a proceeding under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act ex gratis. Neither the law, nor any rule framed under the law, requires such a notice to be served, and no litigant has any right to approach this Court with a petition for setting aside an exparte decree confirming a decree nisi for dissolution of marriage on the ground that he or she did not receive any notice of the Reference under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. 8. This view is supported by another consideration. Both the respondent and the co-respondent were served with summons when the proceeding was pending in the Trial Court, and both of them hotly contested the proceeding before the Trial Court. The decree nisi was passed by the Trial Court in their presence, and in the decree nisi it was expressly stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent would stand dissolved "subject to confirmation of the High Court". Both the respondent and the co-respondent had, therefore, clear notice that the proceedings of the Court of the Additional District Judge would be forwarded to this Court for confirmation in accordance with the provisions of section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. It was, therefore, their duty to take steps for presenting their case in this Court before the Bench which heard the Reference under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, which is a continuation of the proceeding started before the District Court; and no separate notice is required to be given under the law of a Reference under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. It is certainly not our intention to disturb the practice that has grown up, but it must be clearly understood that notices of a Reference under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act are issued by this Court as a matter of grace which is for the purpose of informing the parties that a certain decree nisi has been referred to this Court under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act for confirmation. Under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act read with rule 16 (a) of Chapter II, part I of the Appellate Side Rules no decree nisi passed by a District Court can be confirmed by this Court before the expiry of six months from the date of the decree nisi. This gives ample opportunity to the parties to enter appearance, if they are so advised to contest the proceeding in the Reference under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. There is no question of any contravention of any principle of natural justice upon which strong reliance was placed by Mrs. Nag appearing for respondent Amita Biswas, because the parties were aware of the fact that the decree nisi had been forwarded by the District Court to this Court for confirmation, and they had time for more than six months for entering appearance, if they so liked. For the reasons given above, I would direct that both these applications be dismissed with costs to the petitioner Alwin Atindra Nath Biswas. We assess the hearing fee at three gold mohurs in each application.