MIRYALA KAVITHA ALIAS YADAMMA Vs. MIRYALA KRISHNAIH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 31.1.2004 in LA. No.506 of 2003 in O.P. No.73 of 2002 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda. Through the order under revision, the Trial Court dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay of 122 days in presenting the application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The respondent is the husband of the petitioner. He filed O.P. No.73 of 2002 in the Trial Court under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce on the ground that the petitioner was a patient suffering from the disease of Epilepsy, her behaviour was violent and that her conduct has become unbearable for him. O.P. was decreed ex parte on 12.3.2003. The petitioner filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex parte decree. Since there was delay of 122 days in presenting the said application, she filed LA. No.506 of 2003 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. She pleaded that as soon as she received the notice in O.P., she engaged an advocate and filed vakalat on 19.12.2002. She stated that on account of ill-treatment by the respondent, she has gone pilgrimage to places like Bhadrachalam and Srisailam for mental peace and that she was not informed of the progress in the O.P., since her advocate also left for United States.

(3.) The respondent resisted the application, denying the contents of the affidavit. He pleaded that the petitioner actively pursued O.S. No.467 of 2002 pending in the Court of Junior Civil Judge at the same place and absence of an advocate is not a ground for condonation of delay. He contended that each day's delay was not properly explained. The Trial Court discussed the matter extensively with reference to various judgments rendered by this Court and the Supreme Court. It accepted the version of the respondent and dismissed the LA.