THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4445 & 4446 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner, who is the husband of the respondent, filed these two Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 09.09.2011 passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in allowing I.A.Nos.1004 of 2001 and 1005 of 2001 in O.P.No.240 of 2007 respectively. On decreeing the O.P ex parte, the respondent/wife filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C to set aside the said ex parte decree and as there is delay of 134 days in filing the said application, she filed I.A.No.331 of 2008 to condone the said delay. She examined herself as P.W.1 and was sufficiently examined in chief and cross. When the matter was posted for the evidence of the petitioner herein, he filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief on 08.10.2009. As the petitioner herein was not cross-examined, the matter was posted for hearing. At that stage, the respondent/wife filed the above Interlocutory Applications one to reopen the respondent’s (petitioner herein) evidence to cross-examine R.W.1 and another to recall R.W.1 for the purpose of cross examination. The learned Judge, Family Court, through the impugned orders allowed the said Interlocutory Applications. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/husband filed these Civil Revision Petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent/wife failed to cross examine the petitioner even though the matter underwent 20 adjournments from 02.11.2009 to 23.05.2011, and thereafter also the matter underwent four adjournments and that on the fourth adjournment the impugned I.As were filed, which are not bona fide and only to harass the petitioner. She further contends that the Court below has not assigned any reasons for allowing the impugned Interlocutory Applications and hence, the same are liable to be set aside. Admittedly, I.A.No.331 of 2008 was filed by the respondent/wife for condoning the delay, wherein she pleaded that after examining herself as P.W.1, she tried to examine her neighbours as witnesses, but due to the threats exerted by her husband, they have stopped to attend the Court to face the cross-examination and that on enquiry she came to know that on 08.10.2009 the affidavit of R.W.1 was filed and evidence was closed, without giving opportunity to her. Having regard to the nature of the dispute, and since in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.331 of 2008, the respondent/wife pleaded that as her husband used to regularly visit her, she could not suspect him about the filing of O.P and that she came to know about ex parte decree only after her husband remarried. In such circumstances, the respondent/wife should be given an opportunity to substantiate her plea with regard to the delay caused in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. In view of the same, the impugned orders do not suffer from any manifest illegality warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 14.10.2011 va