ORDER : 1. Appellant has assailed the order dated 31.01.2019 passed by Judge, Family Court, Rajsamand, whereby the court below has set aside ex-parte judgment dated 23.01.2018, while allowing the application preferred under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. read with Section 151 of C.P.C. 2. The order impugned reflects that non-appellant Smt. Meena, wife of Shri Surendra Singh, could not be served and she made an application before the court below that she was residing with her matrimonial home and was rendered befitting homely services and supporting her father-in-law but the appellant, in league with the notice serving staff and postman, advertently got a refusal endorsed, which was not at all in the notice of the non-appellant, thus the court below, while appreciating this aspect, allowed the application preferred under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. coupled with Section 151 of C.P.C. and set aside the ex-parte judgment pertaining to grant of divorce. 3. Perusal of record does reveal no description whether the statements of postman or the service effecting staff, have been recorded by the court below prior to passing of the ex-parte decree. Non-appellant Smt. Meena has been examined by court below, while allowing application preferred under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. and it has also been observed by the court below that non-appellant was residing with her nine year old daughter Tamanna at village Baggar in her matrimonial house and was also rendering support to her father-in-law Devi Singh there. 4. Doctrine of natural justice dictates that none should be condemned unheard and right to be heard is a paramount right. 5. Examination and scrutiny of the order dated 31.01.2019 does not reflect any infirmity, so we do not find any flaw or infirmity in the order impugned. 6. Thus, appeal lacks merit, so is hereby dismissed.