JUDGMENT : 1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 15.12.1995 passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, whereby the learned judge rejected the petitioner's application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. 2. The necessary facts are that the respondent husband filed a petition for divorce in the court of City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, which was registered as Hindu Marriage Petition No. 296 of 1993. The ex-parte decree for divorce came to be passed by the court on 10.1.1994. Thus, the petitioner filed miscellaneous application Exh. 21 for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Her say is that summons were served on her and she engaged a lawyer but the clerk of the advocate did not file the vakalatnama in the court and therefore the matter was decided ex-parte. According to her the fact of ex-parte decree revealed during the course of other proceedings under the Family Courts Act at Bombay. On enquiry the said fact was confirmed on 28.2.1995. Therefore, she made an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree on 21.3.1995. This application was contested by the respondent. The say of the respondent is that the suit was filed on 31.8.1993 and the summons were served on the petitioner on 4.9.1993. The hearing was fixed on 1.10.1993. On 19.10.1993 the application was filed by the husband-petitioner in the divorce petition to proceed with the matter. The evidence of the plaintiff in the said case was recorded on 31.12.1993. Thereafter, the decree was passed on 10.1.1994. Thus, the say of the husband is that the petitioner was negligent in not making any inquiry about the case during the period September 1993 to February 1995. Thus, there is a gross negligence and inaction on her part. 3. During the course of hearing of the application before the trial court a statement was made by the counsel of the husband that after the ex-parte decree the petitioner in the divorce petition contacted second marriage on 30.4.1995. The learned judge keeping in view the said fact and further the fact that no affidavit of the advocate in support of the statement that she had engaged him and the vakalatnama could not be filed on account of the mistake of the clerk has not been filed, held that there was negligence on the part of wife. In view of this, the learned judge rejected the application for restoration. 4. Mr. In view of this, the learned judge rejected the application for restoration. 4. Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the learned judge has misread the decision of this court in the case of Chunilal Nathubhai v. Abdul Razak Shaikh And Anr reported in 21 G.L.R. 562 inasmuch as in that case after the summons being served, the party did not appear in the court. However, in the present case, after the summons was served she engaged the lawyer, and thought that said lawyer will take care of the case. However, the case was not attended by the lawyer, as the vakalatnama was not filed by his clerk. Relying on the decision of the apex court in the case of Rafiq v. Munshilal Reported in AIR 1981 SC 1400 it is submitted that the party should not be punished for the negligence of the counsel. The learned counsel has also relied on the decision of the apex court in the case of Balwinder Kaur v. Hardeep Singh reported in JT 1997(9) SC 157. On the other hand Mr. Akil Qureshi learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there is a total non-action on the part of the petitioner inasmuch as that after engaging the counsel in September 1993 she did not make any enquiry about the progress of the case from her counsel. If she had made little effort, this situation would not have arisen. He further submits that inaction on the part of the petitioner has led to a peculiar situation inasmuch as that the husband has contacted second marriage. Thus, if the ex-parte decree is set aside it will affect the rights created in favour of the second wife of his client. 5. I have considered the rival contention of the parties. The trial court has heavily relied on the decision in the case of CHUNILAL NATHUBHAI (supra). In that case the court held that if on account of non-service of summons a defendant does not appear in the suit and an ex-parte decree is passed against him, time begins to run against him for the purpose of making an application for setting aside the ex parte decree from the date on which he knew that an ex-parte decree was passed against him. The court further held that if the defendant is served with summons and he has appeared in the suit, then it is his duty to attend the court on all subsequent dates of hearing. In such case limitation shall be computed from the date of the order. In my view the said case has no application to the facts of the present case. It is not disputed by the petitioner that the summons were served on her. Her positive case is that after receiving the summons she travelled from Bombay to Ahmedabad and engaged a lawyer. It was the negligence on the part of the lawyer that the vakalatnama was not filed. The version of the petitioner cannot be disbelieved only for the reasons that the affidavit has not been filed. The learned judge was in error in rejecting the version given by the petitioner only on the ground that the affidavit of the advocate has not been filed. The apex court in Rafiq's case (supra) has held that a party should not suffer on account of negligence of the advocate. After engaging the lawyer the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his/her interest. This exactly has happened in the present case. After engaging the lawyer, the petitioner was confident that her case is being looked after by her lawyer. She cannot be held responsible for not filing of vakalatnama by the lawyer or his clerk. The apex court recently in Balwinder Kaur's case (supra) has observed that the petition for divorce is not like any other commercial suit. A divorce not only affects the parties, their children, if any, and their families but the society also feels its reverberations. The court further said that stress should always be on preserving the institution of marriage. In the present case after the evidence of the husband was recorded on 31.12.1993 the court did not take care to look as to why the defendant was not present. The court immediately proceeded to pass ex-parte decree without making further enquiries. The respondent after obtaining the ex-parte decree contacted second marriage on 30.4.1995 i.e. within less than four months. Before contacting the second marriage he ought to have assured that his wife is informed of the ex-parte decree. The court immediately proceeded to pass ex-parte decree without making further enquiries. The respondent after obtaining the ex-parte decree contacted second marriage on 30.4.1995 i.e. within less than four months. Before contacting the second marriage he ought to have assured that his wife is informed of the ex-parte decree. In such case it is expedient that in case of an ex-parte decree of divorce the other spouse intends to remarry, a notice should be given to the other party as a matter of precaution and to avoid later complications. If this care is not taken and thereafter if there is any problem the party should thank himself. Thus, in my view the learned judge has committed an error in rejecting the application for ex-parte decree for divorce on the ground of limitation. In view of this, the aforesaid revision application is allowed and the order dated 15.12.1995 passed by the City Civil Court is quashed and set aside. The petitioner's application Exh. 21 is granted. The ex-parte decree dated 10.1.1994 passed in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 296 of 1993 is quashed and set aside. The parties shall appear in person or through their advocates before the trial court on 22.6.1998. Rule is made absolute. Rule absolute.