Wife's appeal against rejection of her Order 9 Rule 13 CPC application to set aside an ex parte divorce decree. The delay condonation application had been dismissed and was not under challenge; the High Court found no illegality and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
MONDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 283 OF 2006
Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(d) C.P.C R/w Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, challenging the orders dated 07.10.2005 passedCFR1226/2005 in M.O.P No.16 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, Kurnool District.
Between:
Kakanuru Laxmi Devi, W/o. Siva Sankar Reddy, Aged 26 years, Hindu R/o. Gaja Guduru Village Rajupalem mandal Kadapa District
...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
AND
Kakanuru Siva Sankar Reddy, S/o. Gurivi Reddy, aged 29 years, Hindu Allagadda Village and mandal, Kurnool District
...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI T KUMARA RATNAM SRIKRATHANGA PANI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents :
The Court made the following ORDER :
APHC010424522006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3470]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY .THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 283/2006
Between:
Kakanuru Laxmi Devi
...APPELLANT
AND
Kakanuru Siva Sankar Reddy ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant:
1.K RATHANGA PANI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent:
The Court made the following order: (perHon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri T.Kumara Ratnam, learned counsel, representing Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, and perused the material on record.
- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by thewifeofthe respondent/husband.
- The respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.16 of 2003 seeking divorce which was decreed and exparte against the appellant.
4- The appellant filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the exparte decree along with an application being I.A.No.102 of 2005, to condone the delay in filing the application. 5. I.A.No.102 of 2005 was dismissed. Consequently, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was also rejected. 6. Challenging the rejection order dated 07. 10.2005 of the order in application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the present appeal has been filed.
- Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the order on application under Section 5 has not been in challenge.
- Consequently, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 07.10.2005.
- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
SD/- E.KAMESWARA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
TAC
HIGH COURT
DATED:08/07/2024
ORDER
CMA.No.283 of 2006
ANJOjy^
S 2 3 SEP 202't Co
*»L£^spatcvV^iJ
DISMISSING THE C.M.A
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex parte divorce decree was legal when the delay condonation application was not challenged.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Kakanuru Laxmi Devi
Kakanuru Siva Sankar Reddy
Ravi Nath Tilhari
Nyapathy Vijay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
