by Sharia Law and renders continuity of matrimonial companionship difficult. She did not make up with him after beating and claimed/requested divorce based on harm. The Appellant responded to the case, ratified marriage and denied beating and insulting and pleaded that the respondent had previously raised case No.: 179/#/2014, claiming divorce based on harm and the case was cancelled upon assignment, case No.: 462/#/2011 and case No.: 190/2013, all of them claiming divorce based on harm. Appellant has obtained a judgment confirming the respondent’s Nishooz (recalcitrance) and claimed that the case shall be cancelled pursuant to Section 29(1) of the Civil Procedures Act 1983. The Attorney of the Respondent commented that, harm is repeated, therefore, nothing forbids from raising this case. The Court requested that all cases shall be joined. Upon perusing the papers, the legal defense was cancelled, because each case has its own reasons that differ from the other. This judgment has been appealed before the Public Court, which has issued its judgment under No.: #/10/2015 on: 05/11/2015 to cancel the appeal on the basis of summary procedures. The judgment issued by the public Court has been contested before the Khartoum North & Nile East Court of Appeal, which has issued its judgment under No.: #/561/2015 on: 06/01/2016, to cancel the appeal on the basis of summary procedures, hence, this objection has been submitted by the Advocate/ Mr. Mohammed Gismallah Abdul Gadir on behalf of appellant, His reasons were centered on the subject, as the attorney has mentioned the cases raised by the respondent against the appellant and mentioned the respective conclusions , at the end he requested that, the judgment issued by the Trial Court as confirmed by each of the Public Court and the Court of appeal shall be cancelled. In subject, after perusing all papers, I don’t see any hope for this objection to be successful, because the decision issued by the Trial Court does not bar litigation, accordingly; the two decisions issued by the First and Second Courts, which had confirmed it was valid. We criticize the Public Court, because, although the decision does not bar litigation, a matter which it had stated in its merits, it nevertheless, has mentioned it and cancelled the appeal on the basis of summary procedures. We draw its attention to consider this in future.