Honble SHARMA, J.–The learned District Judge, Kota vide judgment dated July 19, 1988 passed an exparte decree in favour of husband respondent Mahaveer Prasad. Against this Judgment and decree present action for filing this civil miscellaneous appeal has been resorted to. I have heard Mr. Virendra Dangi learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sanjay Mehrish, learned counsel for the respon- dent. Earlier an exparte judgment and decree was passed on May 20, 1985. Against the said judgment and decree, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 163/85 was filed by the present appellant and this court remanded the case back to the learned District Judge Kota with the direction that both the parties shall be entitled to participate in the petition for dissolution of marriage. (2). That after remand the respondent amended the petition for dissolution of marriage and as many as four following issues were framed: 1. Whether the parties last resided together in Kota as alleged in para 2 of the petition ? 2. Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try this case ? 3. Whether the opposite party has deserted the petitioner since 20 days after the marriage ? 4. To what relief, if any, is the petitioner entitled ? (3). The case thereafter was posted for recording the evidence of the appellant. On July 8, 1988, advocate Shri Bhagwati Vallabh Sharma, pleaded no instruc- tions and therefore exparte judgment and decree came to be passed on 19.7.88, by the learned District Judge Kota and the marriage ties of the parties were dissolved. The said decree and judgment has been assailed on various grounds. (4). A perusal of the Order 3 Rule 4(2) CPC demonstrates that every appointment of pleader shall be deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the court by a writing signed by the client or the pleader, as the case may be and filed in court, or until the client or the pleader dies or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards his client. In this the counsel for the appellant could not have pleaded no instructions in view of sub-rule 4(2) of Order 3. The court below has not appreciated the provisions contained in sub-rule 4(2) of Order 3 and passed the exparte decree. In this the counsel for the appellant could not have pleaded no instructions in view of sub-rule 4(2) of Order 3. The court below has not appreciated the provisions contained in sub-rule 4(2) of Order 3 and passed the exparte decree. So on this ground alone I am of the view that the decree and judgment deserve to be set aside. (5). Consequently, I allow this civil miscellaneous appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 19.7.1988 and remand the case to the trial court to adjudi- cate the petition of dissolution of marriage on merits after recording evidence of the parties. The record of the case be sent forthwith and the parties are directed now to appear before the Family Court Kota on March 29, 1997.