::1:: APHC010121752025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 662/2025 Between: Smt. V.sirisha @ Pemapati Sirisha, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Pemapati Sreekanth ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G SIMHADRI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. C B ADARSH KUMAR ::2:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.R.P.No.662 of 2025 This Court made the following ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 03.02.2025 passed in I.A.No.31 of 2025 in F.C.O.P.No.242 of 2024 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa, wherein the petition filed by the petitioners herein under Order 9 Rule 7 of C.P.C seeking to set aside the ex-parte order dated 30.12.2024 is dismissed. 2 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the Respondent and perused the material placed on record. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that originally F.C.O.P.No.246 of 2024 is filed seeking custody of the 2nd respondent therein U/s 7 to 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. The 1st and 2nd Petitioners herein are respondents in O.P and respondent herein is petitioner in O.P. ::3:: 4. After filing the said O.P even though notices were served upon the respondents, the respondents therein did not appear before the Court below and Court below was pleased to pass an order in F.C.O.P.No.242 of 2024 on 30.12.2024 making the respondents therein/petitioners herein set ex-parte. Assailing the said ex-parte order, the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.31of 2025 seeking to set aside the ex-parte order and allow the petitioners herein to prosecute the matter in accordance with law. The said I.A.No.31 of 2025 is dismissed by the Court below as under: “Order IX Rule-7 of CPC: Procedure where defendant appears on day of adjourned hearing and assigns good cause for previous non-appearance. Where the Court has adjourned the hearing of the suit exparte and the defendant, at or before such hearing, appears and assigns good cause for his previous non-appearance, he may, upon such terms as the Court directs as to costs or otherwise, be heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared on the day, fixed for his appearance. 7. The petitioner mainly contended that after receiving summons from the Court, she had been suffering with severe gynic problems and she is still under medication and supervision of doctors, for which she could not attend the Court and not filed her counter. The respondent contended that the petitioner has not filed any documentary proof to prove her contention that she was suffering with gynic problem and she is under medication and supervision of doctors and hence, there are no bonafides in ::4:: the petition. To prove the above contention of the petitioner, she has not filed any medical certificate or medical prescription to show that she was suffering with severe gynic problems.” 5. At the time of hearing the matter the learned counsel for Respondent unequivocally consented that the respondent herein has no objection for allowing this revision petition by setting aside the order impugned dated 03.02.2025 and further requested to direct the Court below to dispose of the FCOP No.242 of 2024 after trial on merits by fixing time bound. 6. Both the counsel further reiterated that, if the revision petition is allowed, neither of the party would be prejudiced on the other hand and disposal of the main FCOP No.242 of 2024 after evidence and hearing without there being any delay would meet the ends of justice. In view of the submissions made by both the counsel, this Court is inclined to allow the civil revision petition by way of consent of both parties. 7. It is settled proposition of law that any matter pending before Court even for personal law remedies, it has to be resolved by the Court of Law after providing opportunity of hearing to both parties and after adducing the evidence by them. Basing upon the said principle, the order of the Court below dated 03.02.2025 is contrary to the said principle even ::5:: though the petitioners herein duly explained the reasons for non- appearance, still it was not considered by the Court below and hence order dated 03.02.2025 in I.A.No.31/2025 in F.C.O.P.No.242/2024 on the file of Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa is hereby set aside and accordingly, the CRP is allowed. Further, the Court below is directed to dispose of the FCOP at the earliest in the interest of justice. Consequently, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Dt: 07.04.2025 krk ::6:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 87 C.R.P.No.662 of 2025 Dt: 07.04.2025 krk