THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No.3042 of 2011 DATE: 06.09.2011 Between: Smt. A. Srividya …Petitioner And A.M. Anantha Krishna Chaitanya …Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No.3042 of 2011 O R D E R : This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.06.2011 in I.A.No.817 of 2011 in I.A.No.1941 of 2010 in O.P.No.796 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The revision petitioner is the respondent in O.P.No.796 of 2009 filed by the respondent herein under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce. Despite service of notice, the respondent/revision petitioner did not choose to appear and accordingly she was ex parte on 01.12.2009. She filed I.A.No.44 of 2010 under Order 9 Rule 7 of C.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 01.12.2009 and the same was allowed on costs by order dated 11.03.2010 subject to the condition of filing the counter in the main O.P. by 04.05.2010. However, neither the costs were paid nor the counter was filed. Hence, I.A.No.44 of 2010 stood dismissed on 04.05.2010. The Revision petitioner filed a fresh application being I.A.No.1143 of 2010 again seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 01.12.2009. The said petition was dismissed for default by order dated 02.07.2010. Again, the Revision petitioner filed another application being I.A.No.1941 of 2010 under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC with a prayer to set aside the order dated 1.12.2009. The said I.A.No.1941 of 2010 was allowed on 03.01.2011 subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- to the District Legal Service Authority on or before 24.01.2011. Even the said conditional order was not complied with and therefore, I.A.No.1941 of 2010 was dismissed on 24.01.2011. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.817 of 2011 under Order 9 Rule 7 of C.P.C. to set aside the order dated 24.01.2011. The counsel for the Revision petitioner filed his affidavit in support of the said application stating that he could not appear on 24.1.2011 as he was held up in an urgent matter in another court and that his absence was neither willful nor wanton. By order dated 27.06.2011, the Court below dismissed I.A.No.817 of 2011 as not maintainable and aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that though I.A.No.817 of 2011 was filed under a wrong provision, the same being a curable defect the Court below ought not to have dismissed the said application. It is further contended that the Court below committed a grave error in dismissing the application on mere technical grounds without going into the merits. I have also heard the learned counsel for the respondent. On a careful consideration of the entire material placed before this Court, I do not find substance in any of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the O.P. was filed in the year 2009 and the revision petitioner (respondent in the O.P.) was set ex parte on 01.12.2009, as she failed to appear despite notice. I.A.No.44 of 2010 filed by her for setting aside the said ex parte order dated 01.12.2009 stood dismissed since she failed to file the counter within the time fixed and also failed to pay the costs. The revision petitioner did not choose to challenge the said order dated 4.5.2010 and allowed the same to become final. Thereafter the petitioner strangely came up with a fresh application again seeking to set aside the order dated 1.12.2009 and it was dismissed for default. The revision petitioner again filed a fresh application to set aside the order dated 1.12.2009. Though such application was not maintainable, the Court below showed indulgence and allowed the application on payment of costs of Rs.500/- on or before 24.01.2011. Even the said conditional order was not complied with and therefore the application was dismissed and when the said order was sought to be set aside by filing an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC, the Court below turned down the same. It is apparent from the events noticed above that there was gross negligence and deliberate inaction on the part of the Revision petitioner at every stage of the proceedings. In spite of the fact that the Court below had shown indulgence twice and allowed her applications so as to enable her to contest the O.P., the conditional orders were not complied with. Instead of explaining the reasons for her inability, if any, for such non-compliance, she had chosen to file successive applications for the very same relief. The approach of the revision petitioner in filing successive applications and committing default either in prosecuting the said applications or in complying with the conditional orders passed by the Court itself shows that the applications were filed as part of dilatory strategy and were not bona fide. The fact that every time the applications were filed by the petitioner under wrong provisions further shows the indifference in her approach. Even the explanation furnished in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.817 of 2011 was absolutely vague and not at all convincing. In fact, I.A.No.1941 of 2010 was dismissed for non payment of costs awarded in the order, dated 3.1.2011. Without explaining the reasons for non-compliance of the said order, the counsel for the revision petitioner, who had sworn to the affidavit, merely stated that as he was held up in another court he could not appear on 24.01.2011. After referring to all the aforesaid undisputed facts, the Court below had rightly dismissed the application. It is not a case where the application was dismissed merely on the ground of quoting a wrong provision. Hence the Court below cannot be said to have committed any irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction conferred under law. It is also relevant to note that in the main O.P.No.769 of 2009 the affidavit of P.W.1 in lieu of Chief-examination was filed on 15.02.2011 and thereafter, on 02.03.2011 Exs.P.1 to P.9 documents were marked through P.W.1. The matter is now posted for judgment and the learned counsel for the respondent states that the O.P. could not be decided so far only on account of various applications filed by the revision petitioner. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order under Revision. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 06.09.2011 KLP