THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4342 of 2009 Dated 18.09.2009 Between: Gullapalli Ramalingeswara Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND Gullapalli Lakshmi Mani. .....RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA C.R.P.No.4342 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: Heard both sides. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 15.07.2009, passed by the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, allowing the application I.A.No.259 of 2009 in O.P.No.283 of 2006, filed under Order-9 Rule-13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 19.10.2006, in O.P.No.283 of 2006. 3. Petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife in the O.P., before the Court below. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this order, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as “the husband” and “the wife”, respectively. 5. The husband filed the said O.P., for divorce. However, on 19.10.2006, when the wife was not present, the O.P., was decreed ex parte. Subsequently, on 19.04.2008, the husband married another lady, nearly after one and half years after passing the ex parte decree. Thereafter, the wife filed the present application, on the ground that no summons were served or received by her, along with an application I.A.No.386 of 2008, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to condone the delay of 530 days in fling an application to set aside the ex parte decree, and the said application was allowed. 6. The Court below, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and having heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides, allowed the present application, through the impugned order, setting aside the ex parte decree. Aggrieved by the same, the husband filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 7. Admittedly, it is the discretion of the Court below whether to order an application filed under Order-9 Rule-13 of the Code of Civil Procedure or not. That apart, the wife has taken a specific plea in the application that the husband had obtained the ex parte decree by playing fraud and misrepresentation. The Court below, while taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the nature of allegations levelled against the husband, allowed the said application. 8. When there is a specific allegation against the husband that he obtained the ex parte decree by playing fraud and misrepresentation, this Court would not, normally, interfere in such matters. 9. Hence, I am of the view that the Court below has not passed any unjustifiable order or exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the present application, through the impugned order, setting aside the ex parte decree. 10. For the foregoing, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 18TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 USD