THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.3452 OF 2010 26-08-2010 Between: G.Krishnaveni ..petitioner Vs. G.Yedukondalu son of Late Venkateswarlu …Respondent. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.3452 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER This revision is directed against the order dated 31-05-2010 of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole rejecting I.A.No.1648 of 2009 filed by the petitioner in the O.P.No.180 of 2006. The said application was filed by the revision petitioner/ respondent in the O.P seeking condonation of a delay of 537 days in filing an application to set aside the decree in the O.P. In the affidavit accompanying I.A.No.1648 of 2009, the revision petitioner claimed that her husband/respondent had filed O.P.No.180 of 2006 for grant of a decree of divorce and had obtained an ex parte decree therein; that the husband had furnished wrong addresses in the O.P and on three (3) different occasions, three(3) different addresses were furnished and the summons were returned. Thereafter he filed an application for substituted service and affected paper publication and thereafter the revision petitioner was set ex parte. Since she had no knowledge about the ex parte decree, she filed the application for setting aside the ex parte decree along with the application for condonation of delay. In rejecting the application the Court below held that the revision petitioner’s claim to being a resident of Ongole was not established. She filed the report given by her to the police and a photocopy of the household card (ration card) of her parents. The household card pertains to the period prior to her marriage when she was admittedly living with her parents at Ongole. The plea that at the time of filing the O.P, she was living at Ongole was not established by her. Similarly, the report to the police does not establish her residence in Ongole. The court further held that since the revision petitioner had reported to the police and further action was thereafter dropped on account of a decree of divorce, the petitioner must be presumed to have knowledge of the ex parte decree of divorce. Even thereafter she did not expeditiously file the application for condonation of delay. The court below further observed that her husband/the respondent herein was already married, in 2008 after the decree of divorce and hence it would be in-equitable to condone the delay in fling the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. This court concurs with the reasons recorded by the court below in rejecting the application, I.A No.1648 of 2009. No error in the application of law or in the exercise of discretion is discernable warranting revisional interference. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 26th AUGUST 2010 TSNR