VIJAYA LAXMI Vs. V VIJAYA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant questions the order of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad dated 25-10-1988 dismissing LA. No.943 of 1988 filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code' for short) for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 28-6-1988 in O.P. No.218 of 1987.

(2.) O.P. No.218 of 1987 was preferred by the respondent herein for a decree of divorce dissolving his marriage with the apoellantherein which took place on 24-5-1981. The docket notings in O.P. No. 218 of 1987 show that it was being posted for enquiry from 18-12-1987 on wards and it was being adjourned from time to time. On 8-2-1988 it was adjourned to 12-2-1988 at the request of both sides. On 12-2-1988 P.W.I was examined in part and it was posted to 22-2-1988 for cross-examination of P.W.1. There after, it was posted to 1-3-1988 and it was adjourned to 8-3-1988 as both were not ready. There after it was once again posted to 9-3-1988 and as both the parties as well as their advocates were called. absent, it was dismissed for default. LA. No.362 of 1988 was preferred by the respondent herein for restoration and on 7-6-1988 the said I. A. was allowed and the O.P. was posted to 9-6-1988 and then to 13-6-1988. On 13-6-1988 it was adjourned to 17-6-1988 because appellant's advocate was not ready. On 17-6-1988 it was noted that P.W.I along with his advocate were ready and that appellant and her advocate were called absent and that it was represented on behalf of her advocate that he was not ready. The learned Additional Judge thereafter forfeited the right of the appellant to cross-examine P.W. 1 and at the request of the advocate of the respondent here in his side was closed. O.P. was then posted to 22-6-1988 for the evidence on the appellant's side. On 22-6-1988 advocate of the respondent herein was ready, but the appellant and her advocate were called absent and her side was closed and the matter was posted to23 -6-1988 for arguments and on that date also the appellant and her Counsel were called absent and after hearing the advocate of the respondent here in, the matter was posted to 28-6-1988 for judgment

(3.) In I.A. No.943 of 1988, the plaintiff (sic. appellant) explained that she could not attend the Court as she was suffering from typhoid from 1-6-1988 and as she was bed-ridden. The learned Additional Judge did not disbelieve that averment of the appellant, but dismissed the I.A. with the following reasoning: