JUDGMENT
This matter now comes before us on four substantive grounds of appeal, plus one relating to costs. We invited counsel to address us on ground 3 only, reserving the other grounds. That ground relates to whether the judge was entitled in law to make his second order of February 17, 1983, suo moto , dismissing the husband’s originating summons, without hearing the parties, and in particular, without inviting the appellant to make his submissions against such dismissal. Without deciding the matter, we think that rule 10 of order XXXVI is wide enough to cover a case where the judge, having decided that an originating summons is the correct procedure, after hearing further evidence or material, can, quite legitimately, reach the opposite conclusion, namely that the case has become such that it is not appropriate to decide, for example, complicated issues of disputed fact on an originating summons. If he does come to that conclusion then he may, under rule 10, dismiss the summons. We…