filed the abovesaid Crl.M.P.Nos.517 & 518 of 2018 in M.C.No.360/2015 as early as on 18.05.2018. This itself would clearly show that the said orders passed on the execution side, which has now been impugned in R.P(F.C)Nos.28 & 29 of 2019, are vitiated by illegality, impropriety and that the said orders are unreasonable. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out the various matrimonial litigative proceedings that are pending between the spouses, who are the parents of the respondents herein and that the petitioner by then had already engaged a counsel to defend his case in the original petition filed before the Family Court by the wife, seeking return of money and gold ornaments. That thereafter, the petitioner had also entrusted with the same counsel to defend his case in the abovesaid M.C.No.360/2015. The petitioner bonafide believed that the said counsel would have entered appearance and had defended his case and much later, the petitioner came to know that the said lawyer had taken the stand that as he has not formally engaged in the said case, he had not defended the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner had entrusted the matter with another counsel, who also did not take steps defend the petitioner, etc. More importantly, it is to be seen that the petitioner was also set ex-parte by the Family court, which led to the ex-parte decree and judgment rendered by the Family Court in O.P
