IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.No.907 of 2009 Between: T. Ramachandra Reddy ….. Appellant AND T. Suseela …... Respondent JUDGMENT: (Per B.Prakash Rao, J) Heard both sides. At the consent of both the counsel, the appeal is being taken up for disposal. Being aggrieved by the order dated 07-07-2009 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, in H.M.O.P.No. of 2009 (R.No.1402 of 2009) filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce, rejecting the same on the ground that the present application cannot be maintained for granting divorce second time, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. The appellant herein is the petitioner before the Court below who filed the petition against the respondent-wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking for divorce. The said petition was rejected by the Court below without giving any number to it only on the ground that the petition for granting divorce second time cannot be maintained as already the divorce was granted earlier to the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.89 of 2001 on merits, and therefore, there cannot be any divorce second time. However, during the course of hearing the appeal, the learned counsel on either side submitted that the said observation of the Court below was not correct and in fact, the said H.M.O.P.No.89 of 2001 was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 05-09-2003, against which C.M.A.No.487 of 2008 was filed, which was withdrawn later. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the cases and having heard the learned counsel on either side, we are of the considered view that the very approach of the Court below in rejecting the petition is not justifiable as the said objection cannot be upheld at the numbering stage without going into correctness thereof and without verification. The factum of dismissal of the earlier petition is not denied by the respondents. Even otherwise the record speaks for itself. Therefore, interest of justice would be sub-served if the matter is remitted back to the Court below for processing the case and number and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law after notice and due opportunities. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and set aside the orders dated 07-02-2009 rejecting the application and remitted the matter to the Court below for processing the number, if otherwise in order and for dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving every reasonable opportunity to both parties to raise all their objections, which they are entitled under the law. __________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 29-12-2009 Ksn