second wife is a necessary party = Exparte divorce granted - after appeal time was over - contacted second marriage - first wife filed set aside petition with delay condonation - Apex court remand the case and asked to implead the second wife also to litigation = We, however, consider it apposite to mention that admittedly during pendency of the litigation, certain events have taken place which have bearing over the rights of the parties. 16. It is for this reason, we request the High Court to implead the appellant herein as a party in the miscellaneous appeal and persuade the parties to settle the issues, if possible, on some mutually acceptable terms to give quietus to this long pending matrimonial dispute, since it is not in the interest of any of the parties to these appeals to continue this litigation.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.4847­4848  OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.7529­7530 of 2015)
Karuna Kansal     ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Hemant Kansal & Anr.       ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment
and order dated 17.10.2014 passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore
in Review Petition No.48 of 2014 whereby the Division
Bench of the High Court dismissed the said Review
Petition filed by the appellant herein and upheld the
order dated 09.08.2011 passed by the Single Judge of
1
the   High   Court   in   Miscellaneous   Appeal   No.709   of
2005.
3. A   few   facts   need   mention   hereinbelow   for   the
disposal of these appeals, which involve a short point.
4. The dispute, which is the subject matter of these
appeals,  is  between   the  husband  (respondent   No.1)
and his two wives (appellant and respondent No.2). It
arises   out   of   the   matrimonial   suit   decided   by   the
Family Court between respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
5. By impugned order dated 09.08.2011, the High
Court disposed of the appeal (M.A. No.709/2005)  filed
by respondent No.2 (first wife) against respondent No.1
(husband) under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) of the Code of
Civil   Procedure,   1908   (hereinafter   referred   to   as
“CPC”) against the order dated 10.12.2004 passed by
the Additional District Judge, Kukshi in MJC No. 35 of
2003.
2
6. By order dated 10.12.2004, the ADJ had declined
to condone the delay in filing the application filed by
respondent No.2 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC
and thereby declined to set aside the ex parte decree
dated 23.08.2003 passed in C.S. No. 09­A/02 by the
said Court.
7. The   appellant   herein   is   the   second   wife   of
respondent   No.1   (husband).     It   is   the   case   of   the
appellant that after passing of the ex parte  decree for
dissolution   of   marriage   of   respondent   No.1   with
respondent No.2 and expiry of period of limitation for
filing appeal, respondent No.1(husband) entered into
matrimony with her (appellant).   On the other hand,
respondent No.2 (first wife of respondent No.1) filed
the aforesaid appeal of which the appellant had no
knowledge,   but   the   fact   of   respondent   No.1   having
married the appellant was indeed stated before the
High Court.   However, when respondent No.1 stated
3
that she was having no problem with the appellant,
the High Court set aside the ex parte  decree passed on
23.08.2003 in C.S. No.09­A of 2002 and directed that,
“the parties shall live together as husband and wife.”
The appellant herein (second wife of respondent No.1),
on   coming   to   know   of   the   aforesaid   order   dated
09.08.2011   passed by the Single Judge of the High
Court in M.A. No.709/2005, filed review petition (R.P.
No.48 of 2014) before the High Court.   The Division
Bench of the High Court, by order dated 17.10.2014,
dismissed the said review petition.   Challenging both
the orders, the appellant has filed the present appeals
by way of special leave in this Court.
8. Heard Mr. A.K. Chitale, learned senior counsel
for   the   appellant   and   Ms.   Pankhuri   and   Mr.   S.K.
Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and   on   perusal   of   the   record   of   the   case,   we   are
4
constrained   to   allow   these   appeals,   set   aside   the
impugned orders and remand the case to the High
Court for deciding the miscellaneous appeal afresh on
merits in accordance with law. 
10. The   need   to   remand   the   case   has   occasioned
because we find that the appellant was not made a
party to the appeal and nor she was heard by the High
Court.
11. On   perusal   of   the   impugned   order   dated
09.08.2011, we find that the High Court, even after
taking   note   of   the   factum   of   the   marriage   of   the
appellant with respondent No.1, has not adverted to
the   consequences   thereof   and   has   given   such
directions,   which   may   not   be   capable   of   due
performance.
12. In such a situation, where the impugned order
was   passed   without   hearing   the   appellant   and   not
issuing any notice of the appeal to her and yet giving
5
such directions, which may not be capable of being
carried out, the impugned order, in our view, is wholly
without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable and it
has to be set aside on this short ground alone.
13. It   is   apart   from   the   fact   as   to   whether   such
directions   could   at   all   be   issued;   and   secondly,
whether such directions were necessary in an appeal
between   the   respondents  inter   se  for   its   disposal
wherein the only question involved was as to whether
the Family Court (ADJ) was justified in declining to
condone   the   delay   in   filing   the   application   filed   by
respondent No.1 herein under Order 9 Rule 13 of the
CPC and, if so, on what grounds.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals
succeed and are accordingly allowed.   The impugned
orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the High
Court for deciding the miscellaneous appeal afresh on
merits in  accordance with  law after impleading the
6
appellant herein as a party respondent in the appeal
before the High Court.
15. We, however, consider it apposite to mention that
admittedly during pendency of the litigation, certain
events have taken place which have bearing over the
rights of the parties.
16. It is for this reason, we request the High Court to
implead   the   appellant   herein   as   a   party   in   the
miscellaneous   appeal   and   persuade   the   parties   to
settle   the   issues,   if   possible,   on   some   mutually
acceptable terms to give quietus to this long pending
matrimonial dispute, since it is not in the interest of
any of the parties to these appeals to continue this
litigation.
17. It is only if the High Court eventually finds that
the   parties   are   not   able   to   settle   amicably   for   any
reason, the miscellaneous appeal be decided on  its
merits   in   accordance   with   law   without   being
7
influenced by any observations made in the impugned
order and in this order.
                 ……...................................J.
        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
……...................................J.
        [DINESH MAHESHWARI]
           
New Delhi;
        May 09, 2019
8