JOSEPH KURUVILLA Vs. JEENA SIMON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners suffered an ex parte decree in O.P.No.89/2022, on the files of the Family Court, Thiruvalla. The respondents levied execution, which was transferred to the learned Family Court, Pathanamthitta, and numbered as E.P.No.29/2023, because the property proceeded against was within its jurisdiction. Thereupon, filed R.P.No.50/2024, invoking the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking the ex parte decree to be set aside, conceding that this was filed with delay of 650 days. They alleged that, however, pending the said application for restoration, the execution of the original decree is now being proceeded with; and therefore, that they have been put to irreparable prejudice, thus constraining them to approach this Court, especially since their request for stay of further proceedings in the execution petition has now been rejected by the learned Family Court, Pathanamthitta, through Ext.P10 order.

(2.) Smt.Amrin Fathima - learned counsel for the petitioners, explained that her clients had earlier approached this Court to obtain Ext.P9 judgment, wherein, this Court had directed the learned Execution Court to decide their application for stay, pending the Restoration Application above mentioned. She argued that, however, the learned Family Court has mechanically dismissed it, merely saying that the Restoration Application is still pending. She contended that this is going in circles and that the learned court has acted without properly adverting to the factual scenario.

(3.) On hearing Smt.Amrin Fathima on the afore lines, when this matter was earlier listed, we had called for a report from the learned Family Court, Thiruvalla, as to the present status of R.P.No.50/24 in O.P.No.89/2022. The learned court has reported that, Restoration Application will be disposed of within a period of two months from 15/2/2025, when it is next listed.