THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 3240 of 2008 Oral order: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 03.12.2007, passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 3249 of 2005 in O.P. No. 377 of 20059, filed by the petitioner praying to condone the delay of 118 days in filing application to set aside the order dated 17.04.2006 passed dismissing the O.P. for default. The petitioner, who is the husband, filed the O.P. for grant of divorce with respondent-wife. During the course of proceedings, as the petitioner failed to attend the Court, the O.P. was dismissed for default by order dated 17.04.2006. By the time, he decided to file application to set aside the said default order, there was a delay of 118 days. Hence, he filed the present application praying to condone the delay of 118 days in filing the set aside application. The respondent contested the application by filing counter. The Court below upon considering the rival contentions, by the order under revision, dismissed the condone delay application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not in the country from 27.02.2006 to 18.07.2006 and that that he informed his counsel to represent the same before the Court, but the counsel failed to represent the same, and in those circumstances, the O.P. came to be dismissed for default on 17.04.2006. He submitted that the non-appearance of the petitioner was not wanton, but for his non-availability in the country, and that by the time he came to India and took steps to file application to set aside the default order, delay of 118 days had occurred, and therefore, he filed the present application to condone the delay of 118 days in filing application to set aside the default order, but the Court below committed an error in dismissing the same. He further submitted that as his counsel did not represent, he lodged a complaint against the counsel to the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, but the Court below without considering the said aspect, has erroneously dismissed the condone delay application. Hence, he prayed that the order under revision be set aside and the delay be condoned. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was very much available in the country. He submitted that the petitioner except stating that he was not available in the country did not file any material to substantiate the said statement. He further submitted that in the absence of any plausible explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Court below rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner praying to condone the delay of 118 days in filing application to set aside the default order, and no interference is called for therewith. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the order under revision. With a view to bring about reconciliation between the petitioner and the respondent, this Court on 21.12.2009, directed both the parties to appear on 22.01.2010 for reconciliation. Accordingly, the parties appeared before the Court. Reconciliation was conducted, but the parties failed to reconcile. To that effect the counsel for the petitioner also filed a memo. As the parties failed to reconcile their disputes, this Court heard the matter on merits. Though the petitioner contends that he was not available in the country from 27.02.2006 to 18.07.2006, during which period the O.P. came to be dismissed for default, the fact remains, he has not filed any material to show that he was not available in the country. This apart, though the petitioner contends that he lodged a complaint against his counsel before the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, for his not representing before the Court about his absence in the country, which led to the dismissal of the O.P., the fact remains, the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, upon enquiring into the complaint, rejected the same vide orders dated 11.12.2007, holding that there is no mis-conduct on the part of the counsel in representing the matter. In the absence of any material filed by the petitioner to show that he was out of country during the material point of time when the O.P. came to be dismissed for default, and considering the fact that the complaint lodged by the petitioner against his counsel before the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, was rejected, the Court below has rightly refused to condone the delay of 118 days in filing application to set aside the default order. In the above view of the matter, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. There is no merit in the C.R.P., and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 16th February, 2010 KSR