MOLLY ABRAHAM Vs. MINU SUSAN MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested on this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging an order passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam in I.A. No.5029/2016, through which that court had declined the relief sought for setting aside an order passed by the Family Court on 19-11-2016 dismissing I.A. Nos.4652/2016, 1697/2016 and 1698/2016 and to restore those applications to the files of the Family Court. Through the order impugned herein the Family Court had dismissed I.A. No.5029/2016.

(2.) The case before the Family Court has got a long history. O.P. NO.900/2014 was filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking return of 81 sovereigns of gold ornaments, 10 sovereigns of gold coins, 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its market value and for return of an amount of Rs.36,00,000/- along with interest and another sum of Rs. 1,13,88,520/- along with interest and also for return certain documents belonging to the petitioner therein and her children. The petitioners and the 2nd respondent herein were the respondents in the original petition. The original petition was decreed ex-parte by the Family Court through the judgment passed on 18-03-2016. It was declared that the 1st respondent is entitled to recover amount of Rs.36,00,000/- and Rs.1,13,88,520/- along with interest from the 1 st respondent therein(the 2nd respondent herein). She was also ordered as entitled to get recovery of 81 sovereigns of gold ornaments and 10 sovereigns of gold coins from the same respondent. It was ordered that the 1st respondent is also entitled to recover 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments from all the respondents therein, jointly. The respondents were also directed to return certain documents of the petitioner and her children, kept in their custody.

(3.) The petitioners and the 2nd respondent herein together filed I.A. No.1697/2016 seeking to set aside the ex-parte judgment passed in O.P. No.900/2014. The said petition was filed along with I.A. No.1698/2016 seeking condonation of delay to the extent of 30 days in filing the said application. The above said interim applications were posted for consideration before the Family Court on 19-10-2016. Since there was no representation for the petitioners and the 2nd respondent herein, the court below dismissed I.A. Nos.1697/2016 & 1698/2016, for default. The petitioners and the 2nd respondent herein, thereupon filed I.A. No.4652/2016 seeking to restore I.A. No.1697/2016 and 1698/2016. The said application was filed along with I.A. No.4653/2016 seeking condonation of delay in filing the said petition. The petitioners and the 2nd respondent had again defaulted in appearing on 19-11-2016. Consequently IA Nos.4652/2016 & 4653/2016 were also dismissed for default. Then the petitioners and the 2nd respondent herein together filed IA No.5029/2016 seeking restoration of IA Nos.4652/2016, 1697/2016 & 1698/2016. The said application was opposed stiffly by the 1st respondent herein. The Family Court after appreciating the rival contentions had discarded the version put forth by the petitioners therein, that they were not aware about the posting date of IA Nos.4652/2016 & 4653/2016. Therefore IA No.5029/2016 was dismissed. The said order is under challenge at the instance of the petitioners herein, who were petitioners 2 & 3 in I.A. No.5029/2016. The 1st petitioner has not joined in the challenge against the said order, which is impugned herein.