IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA DATE: 15.12.2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1340 OF 2014 Between:

Godisala Udaya Bhaskar S/o Abraham. …Petitioner And Kavitha D.Shende W/o Dyaya Bhaskar. …Respondent

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C’) is filed aggrieved by the order dated 21.02.2014, in I.A.No.1819 of 2012 in D.O.P.No.606 of 2009, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Khammam District, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 298 days to restore the Divorce O.P, which was dismissed for default on 20.12.2011, was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri Ch.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent though notice served as per endorsement of the Registry. Perused the record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is husband of the respondent. The petitioner herein filed aforesaid Divorce O.P. under Section 27 (1) (d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 to dissolve the marriage between himself and the respondent by passing decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and to award costs. It is stated that on 20.12.2011 when the said O.P. was posted for trial, as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner herein, the said O.P. was dismissed for default.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, it is stated that the petitioner was staying at Kothagudem and in respect of cases registered against him at Secunderabad, Hyderabad, Nagpur and in the process of attending said cases, the petitioner could not attend the Court on 20.12.2011 when the Divorce O.P. was posted for trial. It is further stated that as petitioner is not aware of dismissal of the said O.P, he could not make application within time. The delay has occurred due to inadvertence. Therefore, it is just and necessary to restore the O.P. which was dismissed for default as the said delay is not willful or wanton and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

5. The learned Principal District Judge, after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the material on record, dismissed the petition on the ground that just few days prior to filing of I.A.No.1819 of 2012, the petitioner made enquiry and contacted his Advocate. Further, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner did not choose to mention on what date he approached his counsel and on which date he came to know about dismissal of the O.P.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent lodged number of cases against the petitioner, including criminal cases at different places and in connection with those cases the petitioner used to attend the Courts to represent cases. Therefore, the petitioner could not attend the Court on particular date when the said Divorce O.P. was posted for trial. He also submits that he being a Government employee, he could not get leave as and when it requires. He further submits that said delay is not willful or wanton and due to oversight, he could not file the application within the time and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

7. This Court perused the entire material placed on record including findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Admittedly, there is a delay of 298 days in filing I.A.No.1819 of 2012 under Order IX Rule IX of C.P.C to restore the Divorce O.P. which was dismissed for default on 20.12.2011. Before going into the merits and demerits of the application, the previous case proceedings of the learned trial Court on

27.04.2010, reads as follows:

“The record demonstrates, both the parties sought time for talks for settlement and ultimately on 27.04.2010, this Court passed the Orders as follows:

During the course of pendency of the divorce petition, several attempts were made to reconcile and approachment