IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 87 of 2010 -------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2966/2009 AND IA 2965/2009 IN OP.692/2007 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT ----------------- NAINA D/O.RAVEENDRAN,AGED 32 YEARS, KANISANTE THAZHEKUNI HOUSE, ONCHIYAM AMSOM, KANNOOKKARA DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ AJITH K.T.K.S/O.BALAN, AGED 39 YEARS, KELOTH THAZHEKUNI HOUSE, CHORODE AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- MAT. APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th January, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. This Appeal is lodged against the order passed in I.A.No.2966/09 in OP.No.692/07 on the file of the Family Court, Kozhikode. OP. No.692/07 was filed by the appellant for cancellation of the Settlement Deed. It was decreed ex parte against the respondent. Thereupon, with a delay of 626 days, an Application was filed to condone the delay and another Application to set aside the ex parte order. It is these Applications which have been allowed by the Family Court, which is under challenge. The Family Court has allowed the Application to condone the delay on payment of Rs.4,000/= as costs. Subsequently, the Application to set aside the ex parte decree has been allowed on payment of Rs.2,000/= as costs. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. MAT.APPEAL NO.87 OF 2010 2 Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is a huge delay and the same should not have been condoned. It is stated that though a date is mentioned as 21.10.2009, it is not mentioned that how the respondent came to know of it. He further points out that there were earlier rounds of litigation between the parties. He also relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and Another ((1997) 7 SCC 556). We notice that the present case relates to property rights between the parties. No doubt, no reasons as such are given in the order of the Family Court. But, having regard to the desirability to have adjudicated decisions on merits, particularly in a matter where property rights are involved, we would decline to interfere with the orders. Accordingly, the Appeal fails and it is dismissed. 3. However, we feel that it is necessary in the interest of justice that the Family Court be directed to dispose of OP. No.692/07 pending before it, if the conditions for hearing the matter on merits have been fulfilled by the respondent, within a MAT.APPEAL NO.87 OF 2010 3 period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this Judgment before it. Ordered accordingly. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge