The judgment emphasizes that prior dismissals of applications to set aside ex parte decrees inhibit subsequent applications unless the previous orders are successfully challenged.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The appellant is the respondent-husband in O.P.No.537 of

2013 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram, which was one filed by the respondent herein-wife for return of 42 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value of Rs.8,23,000/-. In that original petition, the appellant was set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed on 13.05.2014. Challenging the ex parte decree, the appellant filed I.A.No.1 of 2022, invoking the provisions under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , which was accompanied by I.A.No.2 of 2022, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 , seeking an order to condone the delay of 3111 days. Those applications ended in dismissal by a common order dated 30.12.2022, which is under challenge in this appeal filed invoking the provisions under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 . This appeal is filed along with C.M. Application No.1 of 2023 for condonation of delay of 9 days.

2. On 28.02.2023, when this appeal came up for admission, this Court issued consolidated notice in both C.M. Application and Mat. Appeal to the respondent by special messenger, returnable by 08.03.2023.

3. By the order dated 09.03.2023, this Court allowed C.M.

Application No.1 of 2023 by condoning the delay of 9 days and the appeal was ordered to be listed before the Bench on

14.03.2023.

4. On 14.03.2023, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent pointed out a common order of the Family Court dated 12.10.2015, whereby the previous applications filed by the appellant for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 13.05.2014 in O.P.No.537 of 2013 and for condonation of delay of 274 days, i.e., I.A.Nos.213 of 2015 and 215 of 2015, stand dismissed. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent, by the order dated 14.03.2023, we have called for records in O.P.No.537 of

2013 by messenger.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the respondent. We have also perused the lower court records.

6. From the records, we notice that, after the ex parte decree dated 13.05.2014, the appellant filed I.A.Nos.212 of 2015 and 213 of 2015 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside that ex parte decree and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Those application ended in dismissal by the common order dated 12.10.2015.

Without challenging the aforesaid order, the appellant filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022. Without noticing the dismissal of I.A.Nos.212 and 213 of 2015, the Family Court proceeded with the matter and dismissed those interlocutory applications, by the order dated 30.12.2022, which is impugned in this appeal. When the earlier applications filed by the appellant to set aside the ex parte decree dated 13.05.2014, stand dismissed by the order dated 12.10.2015, the Family Court ought not to have entertained the subsequent interlocutory applications.

7. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Family Court and this appeal is accordingly dismissed.

8. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the appellant, if so advised, in challenging the order dated 12.10.2015 of the Family Court in I.A.Nos.212 of 2015 and I.A.No.213 of 2015 in O.P.No.537 of 2013, in accordance with law, in appropriate proceedings.

Registry to return the LCR.

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE