HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.R.P.Nos.891 and 900 of 2010 C.R.P.Nos.891 of 2010 Date: 10.03.2010 Between: Dr. K. Yogendra Rao. … Petitioner And Dr. B. B hargavi. … Respondent. HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.R.P.Nos.891 and 900 of 2010 ORDER: Since the petitioner and the respondents are common, both the revision petitions were heard together and are being disposed of at the stage of admission. C.R.P.No.891 of 2010 is filed against the order of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam in I.A.No.67 of 2009 in M.O.P.No.89 of 2007 dated 8.12.2009. C.R.P.No.900 of 2010 is filed against the order of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam in I.A.No.66 of 2009 in M.O.P.No.89 of 2007 dated 8.12.2009. M.O.P.No.89 of 2007 is a petition filed by the petitioner herein for restitution of conjugal rights. The Court below, by order in the aforesaid I.As. condoned the delay of 1426 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 24.3.2008 and restored M.O.P.No.89 of 2007 to file. The respondent herein contended before the Court below that she had entrusted the petition to transfer M.O.P.89 of 2007 to Smt Gajalakshmi Rajendran, Advocate, who had assured that a petition would be filed in the Madras High Court for transfer of M.O.P. from the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam to Chennai, wherefrom the respondent hailed. The affidavit contains a detailed narration of the events which led her to believe that such a petition was filed and her coming to know later that no such petition was filed before the Madras High Court. The Court below, in the order under revision, was satisfied with the explanation submitted by the respondent herein and felt it just and proper to give her one more chance. The petition to condone the delay and the petition to set aside the ex parte decree were allowed and, as a result of the orders of the Court below, M.O.P.No.89 of 2007 was restored to file. The petitioner herein is the husband who filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and is said to have now filed a petition seeking divorce from the respondent. I see no reason to entertain these revisions filed against the orders of the Court below setting aside the ex parte decree and restoring M.O.P.No.89 of 2007 to file. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as a result of the orders passed by the Court below nor can the said orders be said to have caused manifest injustice to him. Exercise of discretion under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not for the mere asking. The orders of the Court below do not suffer from any such infirmity as to warrant interference in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ___________ 10-3-2010 usd/asp