CHERADATH C BALAN Vs. SHYAMALA SATHYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in F.A.O.88/2006 is the decree holder in O.S. 212/2004 which was a suit filed by the wife against the husband for realisation of money due, which was eventually decreed, though ex parte. Before the judgment, the property belonging to the husband was attached. Subsequent to the decree, on a third party claim for lifting the attachment, the court below suo motu reviewed its own decree holding that this is a family dispute and as such only the Family Court has jurisdiction and so the decree is a nullity. After setting aside the decree, the plaint was ordered to be returned for presenting before appropriate court. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) In view of the above order passed by the court below, the application for lifting the attachment was also dismissed against which the third party claimant has filed FAO 66 of 2006. Both the appeals are thus interconnected and arising from the same order and hence heard together.

(3.) The appellant in FAO 66/2006 would contend that the court below has no power to suo motu review a decree passed and to return the plaint. He also contended that the property in question admittedly belonged to the husband and therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the title thereto and that being a money suit against the husband for realisation of money based on a decree ultimately that may be passed, the property was attached and the suit itself was decreed. Being a money suit, it cannot be said to be beyond the jurisdiction of the civil court. Therefore, the question as to whether the court below has got suo motu power to review the decree, arises for consideration.