The petitioner challenged an order declining to set aside a passing of an ex-parte decree on grounds of delay. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Family Court discretion to undo the ex-part decree.
The Original Petition is dismissed; the Family Court order is affirmed.
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 KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2012/1ST JYAISHTA 1934
OP (FC).No. 1549 of 2012 (R)
---------------------------I.A.NOS.2532 OF 2010 AND 2532(a) OF 2010 IN OP.1250/2007 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD
PETITIONER(S):
NAJEEMA, DAUGHTER OF ASUMA BEEVI, SHAJAHAN MANZIL GUARD STATION, MYLAMOODU P.O, PANGODE VILLAGE
BY ADVS.SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.P.K.NIJOY SMT.MINU K. SANU
RESPONDENT(S):
MUHAMMED HUSSAIN, S/O OF ABDUL RASHEED, MUNEER MANZIL, PULASSERY P.O. OTTAPALAM.
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(FC) NO.1549/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
EXT.P1: COPY OF E.P.NO.27 OF 2010 PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA.
EXT.P2: COPY OF I.A.NO.2532 OF 2010 IN O.P.NO.1250 OF 2007 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD.
EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN I.A.NO.2532 OF 2010 AND 2532(a) OF 2010 IN O.P.NO.1250 OF 2007 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
K.T.SANKARAN & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
O.P.(FC) No.1549 of 2012
Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2012
JUDGMENT
Sankaran, J.
The petitioner filed O.P.No.1250 of 2007 against the respondent for return of gold ornaments and cash. The Family Court disposed of the case on 30.6.2008 after setting the respondent ex-parte. The respondent filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree and another application to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. In the affidavit accompanying the application, the respondent stated that after receiving notice in the O.P., he went to meet an Advocate. But on his way, he met with an accident. Therefore, he could not engage a lawyer. The Family Court passed ex-parte decree. The application to set aside the ex-parte decree was not filed within time. There was a delay of 882 days in filing the application.
O.P.(FC) No.1549/2012
2
circumstances of the case and exercised its discretion to set aside the ex-parte decree on condition that the respondent shall pay a sum of ` 10,000/- as costs to the petitioner. The order passed by the court below setting aside the ex-parte decree is under challenge in this Original Petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
O.P.(FC) No.1549/2012
3
O.P. was filed in 2007 and the Family Court may be directed to dispose of the case expeditiously. The Family Court shall make every effort to dispose of the case expeditiously.
K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE
M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
JUDGE
csl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 to reverse the Family Court's order setting aside an ex-parte decree.
Whether the Family Court erred in condoning a delay of 882 days to set aside the ex-parte decree.
Najeema
Muhammed Hussain
K.T. Sankaran
M.L. Joseph Francis
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
