`APHC010569062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3163] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2847 and 2855 of 2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2847 of 2025 Between: 1. LINGAM CHIRANJEEVI, S/O. KANNA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: PROHIBITION & EXCISE SUB- INSPECTOR, R/O. JAGGAIAHPET, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. LINGAM (DASI) SNEHA LATHA, W/O. LINGAM CHIRANJEEVI, AGE 50 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 403, SWARTHI TOWERS, 32-4-14, OPP. NAVODAYA PUBLIC SCHOOL, KASTURIBAIPET, VIJAYAWADA. ..RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S BALA MOHAN RANGA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 2 CMR,J CRP.Nos.2847 & 2855 of 2025 APHC010569042025 [3163] CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2855 of 2025 Between: 1. LINGAM CHIRANJEEVI, S/O. KANNA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: PROHIBITION & EXCISE SUB- INSPECTOR, R/O, JAGGAIAHPET, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. LINGAM (DASI) SNEHA LATHA, W/O. LINGAM CHIRANJEEVI, AGE 50 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 403, SWARTHI TOWERS, 32-4-14, OPP. NAVODAYA PUBLIC SCHOOL, KASTURIBAIPET, VIJAYAWADA. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S BALA MOHAN RANGA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. B V ANJANEYULU The Court made the following: 3 CMR,J CRP.Nos.2847 & 2855 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2847 and 2855 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: Since both these civil revision petitions arise out of the orders passed in two interlocutory applications filed in the same H.M.O.P., to condone the delay of 53 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed in the said H.M.O.P. and to set aside the said ex parte decree, both these civil revision petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent on caveat. 3. The respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed Spl.M.O.P.No.303 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishna District at Machilipatnam, seeking dissolution of their marriage. The said Court initially ordered notice to the respondent/wife and as the same could not be served, substituted service was ordered and the notice was published in Janatha newspaper. As the wife did not enter appearance even after substituted service of notice, she was set ex parte. Thereafter, the said O.P. was returned for presentation before the proper Court. The said 4 CMR,J CRP.Nos.2847 & 2855 of 2025 O.P. was presented before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Machilipatnam, and it was numbered as H.M.O.P.No.211 of 2017. No fresh notice was ordered to the respondent/wife by the said Court. The H.M.O.P. was allowed ex parte, by order and decree dated 24.04.2018. Thereafter, the wife has filed a petition in I.A.No.754 of 2018 to set aside the said ex parte decree and as there was a delay of 53 days in filing the said petition, she has also filed a petition in I.A.No.753 of 2018, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to condone the said delay. The trial Court has allowed both the petitions by separate orders dated 16.07.2025, condoning the delay and setting aside the ex parte decree passed in the H.M.O.P. on payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to Accessibility Committee. Aggrieved thereby, the husband has preferred these revision petitions questioning the legal validity of both the impugned orders. 4. Admittedly, no personal notice was served on the wife in the H.M.O.P. that was filed by the husband and substituted service by way of publication of notice in a newspaper was ordered. The notice was published in Janatha newspaper, which is not a widely circulated newspaper. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is proper service of notice effected on the wife to enable her to appear before the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly allowed the applications 5 CMR,J CRP.Nos.2847 & 2855 of 2025 filed by her for condonation of delay and for setting aside the ex parte decree. There is no legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned orders and there are no valid legal grounds emanating from the record warranting interference of this Court with the impugned orders. 5. Accordingly, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed, affirming the orders of the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 07.11.2025 IBL 6 CMR,J CRP.Nos.2847 & 2855 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2847 and 2855 of 2025 Dt: 07.11.2025 IBL