IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2009 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1931 RPFC.No. 395 of 2009() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23/09/2009 IN CMP EX 491/2009 IN MC.343/2005 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER --------------------------------------- K.UDAYAKUMAR, S/O.SREEDHARAN KATTILPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARIYALLUR AMSOM AND DESOM MALAPPURAM DISRICT, WORKING AT BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS ,TD, B.A.P RANNIPET, TAMILANADU 632 406. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDER RAJ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. POTTAYIL RADHA, AGED 45 YEARS D/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, THAYYILTHODI HOUSE, CHETTIPPADI PARAPPANANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM. 2. SOUMYA, (DOB 16/02/91) AGED 19 YEARS D/O.UDAYAKUMAR RADHA, THAYYILTHODI HOUSE CHETTIPPADI, PARAPPANANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM. 3. SARATH (MINOR) (DOC 30/05/92) AGED 17 YEARS, 3RD RESPONDENT REP BY THE GUARDIAN MOTHER POTTAYIL RADHA,THAYYILTHODI HOUSE, CHETTIPPADI, PARAPPANANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- R.P.(F.C).No.395 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the respondent in C.M.P.Ex.No.491 of 2009 in M.C.No.343 of 2005. The impugned order reads as follows: “Petition filed under Section 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner is present. Property details produced. Issue Attachment and Sales Order to District Collector. -14/10/09.” 2. It is not revealed out as to whether the respondent was served with notice or not. In the cause title it is stated that the revision petitioner not entered appearance. The legality and sustainability of the claim are also not mentioned in the order impugned. What is the amount due and what are all items to be attached and sold are also not mentioned in the order impugned. It also appears that the court below had not satisfied that the articles sought to be attached are belonging to the revision petitioner or not. In the above circumstance, prima facie the order impugned is not sustainable. 3. According to the learned counsel for the revision R.P.(F.C).No.395 of 2009 2 petitioner, the revision petitioner had very valid and substantial objection including the sustainability of the claim and that the revision petitioner filed his objection dated 12/6/2009, copy of which is produced as Annexure-3. But without considering the objection, the order impugned was passed. 4. If any objection filed what was his objection is not mentioned in the impugned order. Without considering the maintainability and the objection thereon, the lower court passed the order impugned. In the above circumstances, the order impugned is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Even if a notice is issued to the respondent it would not yield any result. On the other hand the execution of the order granting maintenance would be delayed and thus the respondent would be prejudiced. In the above circumstance I dispense with the notice. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The trial court shall dispose the petition on merits after considering the objection if any filed by the revision petitioner. Before issuing the sale order, the legality and sustainability of the claim also shall be satisfied. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.