IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 966 of 2009() ---------------------------- OP.648/2006 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.N.JOHN, AGED 62 MECHIRAPPATTU HOUSE, KARIMUGHAL, BRAHMAPURAM PO, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM. 2. MARIYAMMA, AGED 55, W/O. M.N.JOHN MECHIRAPATTU HOUSE, KARIMUGHAL, BRAHMAPURAM PO PUTHENCRUZ ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP SMT.T.MANASY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MAREENA, W/O.WILSON, THOTTUNGAL HOUSE MAMALA PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 2. WILSON, S/O. M.N.JOHN, MECHIRAPPATTU HOUSE, KARIMUGHAL, BRAHMAPURAM PO PUTHENCRUZ ERNAKULAM. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * C.M.Application No.3596 of 2009 & Mat.Appeal No.966 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December 2009 O R D E R & J U D G M E N T Basant,J This application is to condone the delay of 348 days in filing a Mat.Appeal. The Mat.Appeal in turn is directed against an ex parte order passed against the appellants and their son in a proceedings initiated by the daughter-in-law of the appellants claiming amounts. The appellants as well as their son were set ex parte before the court below. The order was passed as early as on 21/07/2008. The appellants have now come before this court arraying their son as the 2nd respondent in this appeal to challenge the impugned ex parte order. 2. Queried as to why the appellants have come before this court without and before exhausting their remedy to get the ex parte order set aside, the learned counsel for the appellants only submits that this application for condonation of delay and the Mat.Appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn without any fetter on the rights of the appellants/petitioners to move the court below to get the ex parte order issued against them set aside. C.M.Application No.3596 of 2009 & Mat.Appeal No.966 of 2009 2 3. We accept the said request of the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application for condonation of delay and the Mat.Appeal are dismissed as withdrawn. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners submits that the execution proceedings have already been initiated and the matter stands posted for sale of property to 14/12/2009. It will, of course, be open to the petitioners to move the court below to get the ex parte order set aside. In such petition, they can seek appropriate interim directions regarding execution. Needless to say, the court below will have to consider the same in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the 1st respondent, decree holder, is very much present before the court below in the execution proceedings. The learned counsel for the appellants prays that the appellants may be permitted to give notice to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/decree holder who is already before the court below. That request has to be made before the court below and we can find absolutely no reason why the court below should not accept the said request. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge C.M.Application No.3596 of 2009 & Mat.Appeal No.966 of 2009 3 C.M.Application No.3596 of 2009 & Mat.Appeal No.966 of 2009 4 C.M.Application No.3596 of 2009 & Mat.Appeal No.966 of 2009 5 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009