JIJO VARGHEESE Vs. MINU THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are the respondents in O.P.No.373/2017 instituted by the respondents herein before the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda, seeking realisation of money and gold ornaments. In an interim application filed by the respondent along with the said O.P., as I.A. No.1087/2017, the Family Court had passed a conditional order of attachment with respect to 3 items of properties scheduled in the said application. The order of conditional attachment was passed on 9.5.2017. According to the petitioners, they filed detailed counter statement in the above said interim application, as per Ext.P4. But it is alleged that, without considering the said counter statement, the Family Court had passed Ext.P5 order as follows:

(2.) The contention of the petitioners is that, value of the properties now attached, contained in the three schedules, will be much higher than the claim raised in the O.P. According to the petitioners, attachment of properties covered under one of the schedules will be more than sufficient to secure the claim. It is contended that, the court below had failed to appreciate those aspects and the conditional order of attachment was made absolute without affording any opportunity to the petitioners to contest their case before the court below.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that, after passing of the conditional order of attachment on 9.5.2017, the case was adjourned for appearance of the petitioners herein, to 24.5.2017. Thereafter, the matter was again adjourned to 8.6.2017. On that date, the 2nd petitioner herein alone appeared and it was reported that respondents 1 and 3 are abroad. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, the alleged counter statement, copy of which is produced herein as Ext.P4, was filed only subsequent to the passing of Ext.P5 order, on 8.6.2005.