THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:1948 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 29.04.2011, in I.A.No.236 of 2011 in I.A.No.282 of 2011 in O.S.No.1104 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein to reopen I.A.No.282 of 2010 for the purpose of marking certain documents, was allowed with a permission to the petitioner to take summons to the witnesses and make arrangements for service of notices on the witnesses and file proof of service and in default of the same, petition would stand dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent. Perused the records. 3. Respondent-husband filed O.P.No.1104 of 2009 for divorce against the petitioner herein and ex parte decree of divorce was granted on 22.02.2010. It is not disputed that the petitioner herein was not served with notices in the O.P. and the matter was proceeded with by ordering substituted service by way of publication in ‘Deccan Herald’ newspaper. After coming to know of the passing of ex parte decree of divorce, petitioner herein filed application for setting aside the ex parte decree together with I.A.No.282 of 2010 for condoning the delay in filing the said application. It is stated that after hearing both sides I.A.No.282 of 2010 was posted for orders along with the other application. At that stage, petitioner filed I.A.No.236 of 2011 for reopening the enquiry in I.A.No.282 of 2010 on the ground that certain documents have to be filed. 4. The learned Judge, Family Court, while allowing the said application, directed the petitioner to take summons to the witnesses and file proof of service. Aggrieved by the said direction, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 5. The main ground on which the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was passed is that there was no personal service. Petitioner therefore sought permission to file the postal cover and certified copy of the proceeding sheet in C.M.I.A.No.1545 of 2009 so that there can be effective adjudication of the dispute. There cannot be any tenable objection for permitting the petitioner to file those documents to show that there has been no personal service of notices in the O.P. When the O.P. was disposed of by granting ex parte orders of divorce, based on substituted service by way of publication in the news paper, the learned Judge, Family Court ought to have afforded an unconditional opportunity to the petitioner to file the documents. While allowing the said application, the learned Judge has attached some conditions by way of rider, which are not warranted in the interlocutory stage. It is well within the competence of the Family Court to consider the matter and pass orders on merits, based on the material placed by the parties. In the circumstances the condition attached to the permission granted by the Family Court, while allowing I.A.No.236 of 2011, is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to file the documents sought to be relied upon in support of the contention in I.A.No.282 of 2010. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 6. Civil Revision Petition is allowed as stated above. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 05th September, 2011. Tsy