Sulaiman vs Sharina

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner, who is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.11 of 2014 in O.P.No.588 of 2010 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad, has filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 17.09.2022 in E.A.No.66 of 2015 in E.P.No.11 of 2014 in O.P.No.588 of 2010 of the Family Court, Palakkad.

On 06.02.2023, when this original petition came up for admission, this Court issued notice on admission to the respondents by speed post, returnable within four weeks. This Court passed an interim order on 06.02.2023, which reads thus;

“In case actual delivery is yet to be effected, there will be an interim stay as prayed for, for a period of one month.”

Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration, the respondents/decree holders enter appearance through counsel.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents.

The learned counsel for the respondents would raise the question of maintainability of this original petition by contending that, in view of the provisions under Order XLIII Rule (1)(j) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the impugned order is appealable before this Court under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The learned counsel would also place reliance on the decision of this Court in Jineev v. Sherly Mathew [2011 (2) KLT 738].

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the question of maintainability of the original petition raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner shall file an appeal before this Court under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act challenging the order dated 17.09.2022 of the Family Court, which is impugned in this original petition. The learned counsel would submit that the execution petition now stands posted before the Family Court tomorrow (01.04.2023) for delivery.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, while dismissing this original petition as not maintainable, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the order dated 17.09.2022 in E.A.No.66 of 2015 in E.P.No.11 of 2014 in O.P.No.588 of 2010 of the Family Court, Palakkad, in an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, we deem it appropriate to direct the Family Court to defer actual delivery of the property, for a period of two weeks.