DELIX BENANCE Vs. REV FR JOHN EUDES FERNS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common order passed in two interlocutory applications, by the Family Court, Kollam, is under challenge. A suit had been filed by the petitioner herein, as plaintiff, against her husband, first respondent herein and two others, third parties. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule properties really belongs to her, but overlooking her claims the husband had sold it away to strangers. The relief prayed for in the suit is for setting aside the documents, whereby such properties were transferred and for a declaration of her title. Taking notice of the interlocutory application filed by her, the Family Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo as prevailing. Subsequently, two applications came to be filed at the instance of the defendants, alleging that the plaintiff had on the boosted strength of the interlocutory orders trespassed into the properties. She required to be evicted. The connected petition was for directing initiation of appropriate action against the plaintiff for violation of the orders. as envisaged under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Taking notice of the materials brought in, the Court had come to a finding that the plaintiff had not only suppressed the real facts, but had also taken forcible possession of the property and she requires to be ejected there from. It had been observed that attempt was to take shelter under a court order for gaining possession over the properties. The court also felt that the plaintiff had taken law in her hands and for the wrong done she requires to compensate the defendants. Consequently, there was a direction to surrender back possession of the property to the concerned defendants and also for payment of Rs.1500/- as compensation. This order dated 15-12-2005 is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition filed on 29-11.2006.

(3.) Hardly any convincing reason has been placed before us to explain the long delay in approaching this Court. We had also noticed that the decision is rested on facts and there has not been any error in appreciating the situation, at least as of now. Further, in paragraph 1 of the order, it has been recorded as following: