PRAKASAN M G Vs. AMBIKA S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is against the order passed by the Family Court, Palakkad in I.A.Nos.445/2015 and 446/2015 in O.P.No.848/2012, dated 16.04.2018. By the orders impugned herein, the applications filed by the appellant seeking to set aside an ex parte decree and for condonation of delay of 432 days occurred in filing the said application, were dismissed.

(2.) The appellant is the respondent in O.P.No.848/2012, which was instituted before the Family Court by the respondent herein. The original petition was filed seeking for return of gold ornaments and money. The Family Court allowed the original petition, after setting the appellant ex parte, because he failed to appear and to contest the original petition. The original petition was decreed directing the appellant to return 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value of Rs. 4,84,000/- and a sum of Rs. 30,000/-, to the respondent herein, along with 9% interest from the date of the petition, till payment. The ex-parte decree was passed on 29.11.2013. The respondent herein took steps to execute the decree by filing an Execution Petition before the Family Court. Afterwards, the appellant filed the above mentioned petitions to set aside the ex parte decree by condoning the delay of 432 days occurred in filing the said petition. The respondent had strongly opposed the applications. The Family Court observed that, the appellant had no case that the delay was caused because of any of his fault, inconvenience or difficulties. Case of the appellant was that, he has not done anything even after getting notice in the EP, only because of the wrong advice given by his counsel. In the affidavit filed in support of the application it was stated that, the counsel was remaining ill and that the appellant could not contact him. The court below observed that, there occurred callous negligence and laches on the part of the appellant in not filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree, within any reasonable time. Having not convinced with the genuineness of the reasons mentioned by the appellant, the Family Court observed that, the appellant had not taken any steps to prove that there were sufficient cause for not approaching that court within any reasonable time. Hence the delay condonation application as well as the application to set aside the ex parte decree were dismissed.

(3.) Despite service of notice from this court, the respondent has not chosen to enter appearance or to contest this appeal.