IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 Mat.Appeal.No. 157 of 2008() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/01/2008 IN IA 256/2008 IN OS.121/2005 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OS -------------------------------------- FASALUDEEN, KALEELUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PADINJATTINKARA MURI, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE SRI.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT IN OS ----------------------------- NABEEZA BEEVI, PALLITHEKKETHI VEEDU, TALACHIRA MURI, CHAKKUVARAKKAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN FOR R1 SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NO.598 OF 2008 IN MAT. APPEAL NO. 157 OF 2008. DISMISSED 21.5.2008 (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------- MAT. APPEAL NO. 157 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st May, 2008 JUDGMENT Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. This appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.S. No.121 of 2005 on the file of the Family Court, Kottarakkara challenging the dismissal of I.A. No.256 of 2008. The said interlocutory application was filed for re- opening the case for evidence by reviewing the order dated 17.1.2008. Dismissing the application, the Family Court observed that the conduct of the parties and counsel for the last 20 months show that they were not vigilant in completing the evidence, but were deliberately flouting the repeated directions of the court. The Family Court further observed that there was deliberate laches and inaction on the part of the plaintiff in completing the cross-examination of the defendant. 2. Various reasons are stated by the petitioner for reopening the evidence. It is also submitted that there was no deliberate omission or inaction on his part in not vigilantly prosecuting the case. Mat. Appeal No.157/2008 2 3. On going through the observations in the impugned order dated 29.1.2008, we are of the view that the finding of the Family Court that the parties were not vigilant in prosecuting the case and that there was deliberate laches and inaction on their part are facts which the parties cannot deny. At the same time, we feel that in the interests of justice an opportunity shall be given to the petitioner for effectively prosecuting his case and for a decision on merits. Hence, we set aside the impugned order and allow I.A. No.256 of 2008 in O.S. No.121 of 2005. The Family Court is directed to reopen the case for evidence. The case shall be disposed of in another two months of the next posting. The Matrimonial Appeal is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ Mat. Appeal No.157/2008 3 KURIAN JOSEPH & HAURN-UL-RASHID, JJ. MAT. APPELNO.157/2008 JUDGMENT 21ST MAY, 2008