JUDGMENT B.M. Lal, J. 1. In a hot-haste manner the impugned judgment and decree for divorce was obtained by the respondent/husband on 15-4-86 in Civil Suit No. 68-A of 86 passed by the IV Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur, against his wife/appellant. The manner in which the decree was obtained is shrouded with lot of doubts. 2. Apart from doubts, the legality of the divorce decree is to be tested in the light of the provisions of Order 15 C.P.C. and Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') i.e., if parties are not at issue, whether the Court in such circumstances without examining the plaintiff or the defendant, as the case may be, can pass the decree ? And secondly, whether under the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Act, which are mandatory, without adhering it, decree can be passed in matrimonial suit? 3. The short facts leading to this appeal are as under. The parties are Pachori Brahmins and their marriage was solemnised according to the ritis prevalent in their caste in Mahakoshal region, on 15-7-80. 4. A petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Act was filed on 18-3-86 by the husband/respondent against the wife/appellant on the ground of adultery by alleging that soon after the marriage the wife Smt. Rajni Pachori left the matrimonial home and started living with her parents and indulged in adulterous activities, with the result, she begot a child through her paramour. 5. On 21-3-1986 the case was placed before the Court below but due to the sad demise of an Advocate (Shri L.S. Singh;, the Courts were closed-Therefore, the case was taken up on 25-3-86. The order-sheet of this date reveals that the appellant and her counsel appeared and filed written-state-ment admitting all the allegations including that of adultery. The case was adjourned for 11-4-86 on which date the Court below directed that there was no need to frame any issue in view of the written-statement and on 15-4-86 and pronounced the judgment anulling the marriage between the parties. It was on 21-4-86 that the decree was drawn up. 6. No doubt, after amendment of the Act, by mutual consent of the parties to the marriage, decree for annulling marriage can be passed. But, such is not the position in the instant case. It was on 21-4-86 that the decree was drawn up. 6. No doubt, after amendment of the Act, by mutual consent of the parties to the marriage, decree for annulling marriage can be passed. But, such is not the position in the instant case. Had it been so, the spouse could have filed a joint petition requesting the Court to pass decree for divorce. A perusal of the record shows that such a petition was not filed. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the wife/appellant has contended that no notice was issued to the wife and consequently, she was not aware of the proceedings of divorce against her. She, therefore, contends that the husband appears to have obtained the decree of divorce by foul play. 8. Be that as it may, since the decree impugned is not sustainable in law, therefore, it will be futile to direct investigation into the allegations of fraud practised upon the Court. Order 15, Rule 1 C.P.C. reads as under : Rule 1.--Parties not at issue.--Where at the first hearing of a suit it appears that the parties are not at issue on any question of law or of fact, the Court may at once pronounce judgment. 9. It appears that the learned Court below having considered the averments of the plaint and the admitted position, as narrated in the written statement, thought that the parties are not at issue and therefore, granted the decree. In such a situation, the Court should have applied its mind before proceeding with the proceedings of the case, as provided under Order 15, Rule 1, C.P.C. In the instant case, the appellant, without notice appeared before the Court below and filed her written-statement immediately after the filing of the suit. This gives reasonable doubt, as to whether the wife/appellant really appeared through her counsel or someone else, pretending to be the wife of the plaintiff/respondent had appeared. Therefore, in sach cases where the Court is expected to proceed under Order 15 C.P.C. it must be seen and satisfied that the proper parties are before the Court and that admission has been made by proper party as to the averments of the plaint. To ascertain this, recording of the statements of the parties must be made. The word 'appears' used in Rule 1 of Order 15 C.P.C., has got a wide connotation which requires judicial satisfaction of the Court. To ascertain this, recording of the statements of the parties must be made. The word 'appears' used in Rule 1 of Order 15 C.P.C., has got a wide connotation which requires judicial satisfaction of the Court. It is to be read in the context of the words 'at once pronounce the judgment'. Thus, before pronounce the judgment in such a case, apart from other things, it is expected of the Court to satisfy that the proper parties are before it. 10. In the instant case, the wife has been charged with wild allegation of 'adultery' and normally no woman will admit such an allegation, but here in the written-statement this allegation too, has been admitted, and on this basis alcne it was expected of the trial Court to satisfy itself as to whether really the wife/appellant has admitted this allegation or not and for that it should have directed appearance of the parties so as to fulfil the test of the word 'appears' as used in Order 15, Rule 1 C.P.C. It appears that it has not been done and without it the decree impugned has been passed. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the decree under appeal deserves to be set aside on this count alone. 11. Besides this, the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Act which reads as under: 23. Decree in proceedings--(1) XXX XXX XXX (2) Before proceeding to grant any relief under this Act, it shall he the duty of the Court in the first instance, in every case, where it is possible so to do consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case to make every endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties : Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to any proceeding wherein relief is sought on any of the grounds specified in clause (ii), clause (iii), clause (iv), clause (v) or clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of Section 13. issue injunction upon the Court to make every endeavour for reconciliation between the parties, for which the parties are required to appear in person and if without complying with the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Act, the Court passes decree, the same renders nullity. See Raghunath Prasad v. Smt. Urmila Devi and another A.I.R. 1973 All. 203 and Anupama Misra v. Bhagaban Misra A.I.R. 1972 Ori. 153. 12. See Raghunath Prasad v. Smt. Urmila Devi and another A.I.R. 1973 All. 203 and Anupama Misra v. Bhagaban Misra A.I.R. 1972 Ori. 153. 12. A perusal of the record of the instant case demonstrates that no such endeavour has been made by the learned Court below for reconciliation between the parties and as such provisions of Section 23(2) of the Act have not been complied with. This being so. 13. This being the legal position, the parties being at issue on the question of law i.e. Sec. 23(2) of the Act as discussed aforesaid, the lower Court committed manifest error of law in adhering to the provision of Order XV, Rule 1 C.P.C. in pronouncing the judgment at once. Therefore, on this count also the decree deserves to be set aside. 14. From the discussion aforesaid, the judgment and decree of the Court below are set aside. The appeal is allowed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/- if certified. This appeal is of the year 1986. The parties are directed to appear before the Court of IVth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur on 1-2-88 and the trial Court is directed to proceed with the case directing the wife/appellant to file her written-statement and then to decide it on merit according to law.