THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1474 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 11.02.2011 in I.A.No. 261 of 2006 in H.M.O.P.No. 3 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, whereunder, the petition filed under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. to set aside the dismissal order dated 14.11.2006 was dismissed on the ground that sufficient cause was not shown. The petitioner herein filed the above said Original Petition for divorce. The matter was at the stage of enquiry. While so, on 14.11.2006, the main petition was dismissed for the absence of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that, that day being the Children’s day, the petitioner was under the impression that it was a holiday. The petitioner therefore, filed the above said I.A. under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. seeking to set aside the said dismissal order. The Court below, while observing that there were laches on the part of the petitioner in prosecuting the case and appearing before the Court for the cross-examination, dismissed the Application. Hence, this Revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was under a mistaken impression that 14.11.2006 was a public holiday and therefore, he did not attend the Court. He further submits that immediately after coming to know the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed an Application to restore the main Petition. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that during the pendency of O.P.No. 3 of 2003, this Court directed the petitioner to pay maintenance and that maintenance is not being paid and hence, he prays to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. A perusal of the material available on record shows that O.P.No. 3 of 2003, which was filed for divorce, was dismissed for default on 14.11.2006 as the petitioner did not attend the Court. Immediately thereafter, he filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. to set aside the dismissal order. The word ‘sufficient cause’ in Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. is not defined, but it must be a cause, which is beyond the control of the party for invoking the aid of the said provision. The word ‘sufficient cause’ in Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. has to be construed liberally so as to do substantial justice, but at the same time, no negligence or inaction can be attributable to the party. Only on one occasion, the petitioner seems to be not present when the Original Petition was called for hearing. It is not a case of willful absence on the part of the petitioner on the day when the Petition was dismissed for default. Since the O.P. is not restored to file, interim directions issued by this Court have not been complied with. Since sufficient cause was shown by the petitioner for not attending the Court, the Application filed by him to set aside the order of dismissal has to be allowed. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 11.02.2011 in I.A.No. 261 of 2006. Consequently, the order of dismissal dated 14.11.2006 passed in H.M.O.P.No. 3 of 2003 by the Court below is set aside and H.M.O.P. is restored to its file. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the interim maintenance as ordered by this Court at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month from January 2006 to July 2011, within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner undertakes to pay the said maintenance as ordered. No costs. --------------------- (K.C. BHANU, J) 30th November 2011 ksld