P.R. RAMAN, J.

1. The appellant in F.A.O.88/2006 is the decree holder in O.S. 212/2004 which was a suit filed by the wife against the husband for realisation of money due, which was eventually decreed, though ex parte. Before the judgment, the property belonging to the husband was attached. Subsequent to the decree, on a third party claim for lifting the attachment the court below suo motu reviewed its own decree holding that this is a family dispute and as such only the Family Court has jurisdiction and so the decree is a nullity. After setting aside the decree, the plaint was ordered to be returned for presenting before appropriate court. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. In view of the above order passed by the court below, the application for lifting the attachment was also dismissed against which the third party claimant has filed F.A.O.66 of 2006. Both the appeals are thus inter-connected and arising from the same order and hence heard together.

3. The appellant in F.A.O. 66/2006 would contend that the court below has no power to suo motu review a decree passed and to return the plaint. He also contended that the property in question admitt