IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 OP (FC).No. 789 of 2011(R) -------------------------- OP.1102/2010 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- REJI, S/O. CHUNGATH KOCHUNNI, KUTTIUPURAM.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- FATHIMA, W/O. PAPPINISSERY SAIDALI, KATTIPPARUTHI.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN 673 523 THIS O.P. (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(F.C.) No. 789 of 2011 R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Joseph J., The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer: “Direct the Family Court, Malappuram to take Ext.P5 petition on file, number the same and consider the same on merits and pass appropriate order thereon, without delay”. 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner is the owner of the property which is the subject matter of O.S. No.205 of 2003 on the file of Munsiff Court, Tirur. The said suit was filed by the petitioner against the respondent's husband for recovery of portion of the property. The respondent filed suit against the petitioner as O.S. No. 147 of 2001 in respect of the very O.P.(F.C.) No. 789 of 2011 :2: same property praying for perpetual prohibitory injunction. It was dismissed. The appeal filed is pending. While so, O.S. No. 205 of 2003 was decreed ex-parte. The respondent's husband filed application to set aside the ex parte decree, which was allowed. Thereafter the matter was posted for listing for trial but the respondent's husband deliberately remained absent. It was again decreed exparte. Thereafter the respondent's husband filed application to set aside the ex-parte order, which was allowed and the suit decreed exparte. There is challenge in appeal by the respondent's husband as indigent person in the original suit and ultimately appeal was dismissed. The petitioner filed E.P.. The Court ordered delivery of the property. While so, the respondent in collusion with her husband filed E.A. claiming right over the property. She filed O.P. No.1102 of 2010 before Family Court, Malappuram to set aside the registered sale deed in respect of the properties. The said O.P. was posted to 7.2.2010. When the matter was posted, the petitioner could not reach the Court due to traffic block. A petition was filed to set aside the exparte order. But it is complaint of the petitioner that by the time he reached the Court the O.P.(F.C.) No. 789 of 2011 :3: case was called and he had been set ex-parte. 3. Today when the matter came up, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner has obtained certified copy of the order and it has already been produced. 4. Going on the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we dispose of the O.P.(F.C) by directing the Family Court, Malappuram to take up Ext.P5, and to take up decision in accordance with law, without any undue delay. We are pronouncing this judgment on the basis that the only defect noted by the Court below is that the certified copy was not produced. K.M. JOSEPH, (JUDGE) M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/