L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 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.

( 4 ) MR. K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay occurred on account of the fact that the petitioner as well as her advocate were out of station and that there was no negligence on their part in pursuing the proceedings. He contends that the trial Court proceeded with undue haste in decreeing the O. P. ex parte and that the view taken by it in the order under revision cannot be sustained in law. He also contends that when the effort is to ensure that the parties, be, given an opportunity to seek adjudication on merits, particularly in matrimonial matters, there was no justification for the Trial Court in taking a hyper-technical view of the matter.

( 5 ) SRI M. Venkatram Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that except taking certain general pleas, the petitioner did not substantiate her claim for condonation of delay. He submits that the contention of the respondent that the petitioner attended the Court on several dates between March and August, 2003 remained unrebutted. He places reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in P. K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and another AIR 1998 sc 2276, and the judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited, hyderabad v. G. Sarada Prasad and others, 2001 (2) ALD 161 (DB ).

( 6 ) THE respondent filed O. P. against the petitioner under Section 13 of the hindu Marriage Act. His principal contention was that the petitioner is suffering from epilepsy and her behaviour is violent. The respondent himself is a medical practitioner. He would be in a better position to appreciate the plight and mental disturbance of a person suffering from such a disease and the capacity of such persons to take independent decisions. He has chosen to implead the petitioner independently and not through any near relative. That, however, is a different aspect. As soon as she received notice, the petitioner filed vakalat on 19. 12. 2002 and engaged an advocate. In le

Click Here to Read the rest of this document