Noorjahan vs Shyma
2022 Latest Caselaw 3937 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
                                   &
           THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
 TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1944
                     OP (FC) NO. 108 OF 2022
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN EP 20/2015 OF FAMILY
                             COURT,KOLLAM
PETITIONER:

           NOORJAHAN, AGED 59 YEARS, W/O. ABDUL SALAM,
           SAMNA MAHAL, SAMATHAWAM NAGAR, VALATHUNGAL P.O.
           KOLLAM 691 011.

           BY ADV M.R.SASITH



RESPONDENTS:

    1       SHYMA, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. SHAHUL HAMEED, BISMI,
            KARIKKODU, TKMC P.O., KOLLAM 691 005.

    2       PISA (MINOR), MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER
            SHYMA, RESIDING AT BISMI, KARIKKODU, TKMC P.O.,
            KOLLAM 691 005.

    3       VAISUDEEN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMAD ILLYAS,
            SAINABA MANZIL, ASRAMAM P.O., KOLLAM 691 002.

           BY ADVS.
           K.SIJU
           ANJANA KANNATH(K/939/2014)
           T.S.SREEKUTTY(K/556/2016)
           PRATHEESH.P




        THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.04.2022,    THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 OP (FC) NO. 108 OF 2022

                            ..2..




                    J U D G M E N T

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J

The petitioner is the petitioner in O.P No.1593 of

2021 and also the judgment debtor in O.P No.489 of 2009.

Execution has been laid by the respondent-decree holder to

execute the decree in O.P No.489 of 2009. In O.P No.1593

of 2021, the petitioner challenges the ex-parte decree

granted in O.P No.489 of 2009. The petitioner filed a

petition under Order XXI Rule 29 of the Code of Civil

Procedure to stay all execution proceedings in O.P No.489

of 2009. The Family Court granted stay on condition that

the petitioner deposits 25 per cent of the decreetal

amount. The petitioner could not deposit the amount

within time. He filed an application to enlarge the time.

That petition also has been dismissed. Challenging these

orders, the petitioner approached this Court.

2. It is submitted at the bar that an application

to set aside the ex-parte decree has also been filed and

the same is pending. We do not find any reason to OP (FC) NO. 108 OF 2022

..3..

interfere with the impugned orders. However, we are of

the view that the application filed by the petitioner to

set aside the ex-parte order in O.P No.489 of 2009 shall

be considered within a period of four weeks.

This original petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

Sd/-

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE PR OP (FC) NO. 108 OF 2022

..4..

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 108/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL PETITION NO.

1593/2021 DATED 19.11.2021.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN EA NO. 178/2021 IN EP NO. 20/2015 DATED 14.12.2021.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FILED AS EA NO. 199/2021 IN EP NO. 20/2015 DATED 30.12.2021.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN EA NO. 199/2021 IN EP NO. 20/2015 DATED 15.01.2022.