Backdrop of the que: There is a pending divorce suit between parties.
1. From the pleadings ofparties 2 issues were framed concerning "mental cruelty" and desertion"
2. Meanwhile HC gave direction to lower court to first decide "jurisdiction" issue than take up any other issues of parties.
3. As directed the trial court framed the third issue on "jurisdicion" and asked parties to lead evidences.
4. Meanwhile instead of deciding "jurisdiction" issue first trail court started favoring one party and forcing other party to "settlement"
5. The other party has refused ofr settlement yet trrail court is directing other party to come on next date with settlement etc. This has happened twice post HC direction.
Que now is:
1. Is trial court right in "settlement" approach on record (mention is by way of direction in daily order sheets) ?
2. Should not the "jurisdiction" issue should be decided before even "settlement" is even taken up?
3. Even if party agree for settlement" will the final decree not challengeable by either party as "jurisdiction" to try out any issues by trial court was never decided?
4. The "settlement" is not an issue I am aware of but it leads to "willfully compromising" on main issue of "jurisdiction" is the primary inference here.
Kindly advise what remedy the agrieved party has in the backdrop of above proceedings of trial court.
