IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2011 / 2ND BHADRA 1933 OP (FC).No. 2674 of 2011(R) --------------------------------------- O.P. NO.318/2011 of FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- ANWAR SADATH, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.ABBAS KUTTY, THANDANTAYYATHU VEEDU, T.P.NO.IX/546, VENGARA, THODIYOOR VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP, SMT.V.V.RISANI, SRI.SANEESH KUNJUKUNJU. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. ANSEENA, AGED 21 YEARS, W/O.HAMSA, PLAVILA VEEDU, MANPPALLY NORTH, PAVUMBA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY-690 518. 2. ASFA (MINOR), D/O.ANSEENA, DO. 3. SHIBU, AGED 31, S/O.JAMALUDEEN KUNJU, KUTTYIL VEEDU, TP X/423, VENGARA, THODITOOR VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY-690 518. 4. JAMALUDEEN, AGED 56 YEARS, DO. 5. SAFIYA, AGED 48, W/O.JAMALUDEEN, DO. 6. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY BY THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO THE HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R6 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.R. LAKSHMI NARAYAN. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs OP (FC).No. 2674 of 2011(R) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE O.P. NO. 318/11 OF FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM EXT.P2: COPY OF THE I.A.867/11 IN O.P. NO. 318/11. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE SCHEDULE ATTACHED TO EXT.P2. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE I.A.1908/11 IN O.P. NO. 318/11. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 13/03/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & K.Surendra Mohan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = OP(FC).No.2674 of 2011-R = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of August, 2011. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner says that there is a matrimonial litigation between respondents 1 to 5 in the Family Court, Kollam and that the said case, O.P.No.318 of 2011, is going through the process of counselling. He further says that he is a stranger to the litigation, however that an item of property belonging to him, has been erroneously attached and that he has applied to the Family Court to lift the attachment. He also says that his application Ext.P4 cannot be the subject matter of the counselling and therefore, the learned Judge of the Family Court may hear that application notwithstanding the listing of the case for counselling. OPFC.2674/11 -: 2 :- Taking the aforesaid into consideration and without expressing anything on merits, we direct that on production of a copy of this judgment before the Family Court, the learned Judge will look into the matter appropriately. The writ petition ordered accordingly. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. K.Surendra Mohan, Judge. Sha/2608