MURUKARAJ Vs. SUMALATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS call in question the orders passed in I.A.No.82/2010 and I.A.No.83/2010 in O.P.No.229/2008 on the file of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. APPELLANTS are respondents in OP No.229/2008 filed by the respondent. Respondent is the wife of the Ist appellant and daughter-in-law of the 2nd appellant.

(2.) THE Original Petition was filed for return of gold ornaments or its value. THE same was decreed exparte. Appellants filed I.A.No.82/2010 to set aside the exparte decree and I.A.No.83/2010 to condone the delay of 430 days. I.A.No.83/2010 was dismissed noting that there is no evidence adduced and the delay of 430 days is not properly explained. I.A.No.82/2010 was dismissed stating appellant absent, no evidence. According to the appellants, their absence was neither deliberate nor willful. It is stated that the Ist appellant is a chronic patient and the 2nd appellant is aged about 80 years. Appellants have also a case that, in fact, in the year 2007 whatever movables including gold ornaments belonging to the respondent which were with the appellants were handed over to the respondent and to that effect there is an endorsement in the records in the office of the 'Thattan Community' at Harippad. In short, the case of the appellants is that they have a good case on merits and they pray for an opportunity for an adjudicated decision.