RAJESWARI Vs. VENKATESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TODAY, when the above C.M.P. No. 5014 of 2000, which was filed seeking to fix an early date for the hearing of the above Civil Revision Petition has been taken up for consideration, since it came to be known that the very Civil Revision Petition has been filed on a single and minor point, this Court has taken up the Civil Revision Petition and the C.M.P. for hearing and disposal. Since only the learned counsel for the petitioner is present and neither the respondent nor his counsel made appearance before this Court, when the above matter was taken up for consideration, this Court is left with no option but to dispose the above matters having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE above Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 26.8.1996 made in I.A. No. 15 of 19% in H.M.O.P. No. 61 of 1991 by the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Myladuthurai, in dismissing the said petition to condone the delay of 942 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree for divorce dated 8.4.1992 passed in H.M.O.P. No. 61 of 1991.

(3.) AT the outset it is an admitted case that there was no summons served on the petitioner wife in the divorce petition in H.M.O.P. No. 61 of 1991, which had been instituted by the husband for dissolution of his marriage held with the petitioner. The only question that is to be decided is whether she "neglected" to receive the summons served on her. It is not the argument of the respondent herein before the lower Court that the petitioner refused summons and the same had been remarked in the summons sent and returned. Creating certain circumstances, ultimately, the lower Court has held that those circumstances would go to show that the petitioner had deliberately neglected to receive the summons, which would only prove that not on any definite proof the lower Court had come to such a conclusion.