A Family Court must allow parties to present all evidence and arguments before concluding a case, ensuring no prejudgment occurs.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order of the learned Family Court, Ernakulam, because it has refused to confirm the conditional attachment on the properties of the respondents, earlier ordered under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

2. Sri.Shaju Purushothaman – appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Family Court has unfortunately prejudged every issue in the Suit, to virtually find that it cannot be decreed; and has thus issued the impugned order. He pointed out that the learned Court has held that the claim of his client is untenable and that he is not entitled to any amount as claimed for; and that this limpidly suggests a total deviation from the established legal processes. He reiteratingly prayed that this Original Petition be, therefore, allowed. 3. Sri.M.S.Unnikrishnan – appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the learned Family Court has only verified in a preliminary manner whether the claim of the petitioner is tenable. He pointed out that documents have been produced by both sides, along with their pleadings; though conceding that they have not been allowed to lead evidence orally. He, nevertheless, argued that the documents on record clearly indicate that there was a final settlement between all the parties and that his clients have consequently discharged the amounts due to the petitioner; and hence that the present Original Petition is an abuse of process. He particularly relied on Ext.A7 copy of the cheque for Rs.24 lakhs, in substantiation; and argued that when all due amounts has been paid, the learned Family Court has acted correctly in having dismissed the application for attachment.

4. We are aware that summons to the first respondent from this Court has not been served; but, since no reliefs have been sought against her by either of the parties, at least in this proceeding, we are of the view that it will be justified for us to dispose of this matter in her absence, especially since the directions we propose will cause her no prejudice.

5. We have examined Ext.P4, which is the order impugned, on the touchstone of the documents on record, copies of which have been handed over across the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties, with express consent that it can be relied upon by us for this judgment.

6. As rightly argued by Sri.Shaju Purushothaman, the learned Family Court has refused to confirm the earlier order of conditional attachment, finding that Ext.A7 copy of the cheque establishes the case of the respondents that they had discharged all the amounts due to the petitioner. The Court has further relied upon Ext.B1 - which is a copy of an alleged settlement, to find that it can only be construed to be genuine because Ext.B2 photograph shows that the parties had signed it.

7. Even though Sri.M.S.Unnikrishnan argues that these documents are fully admissible in evidence, thus deserving of being accepted by the learned Family Court, we are certainly of the view that no affirmative conclusion, based on the same, could have ever been entered into. At the best, a prima facie opinion, within the conspectus of Order XXXVIII Rules 5 and 6 of the CPC, could have been arrived; but, beyond that, to say that all these documents are genuine, or that they are to be construed to be so, by the learned Family Court, at this stage, was untenable. This is more so, when admittedly, the parties are not gone to trial and none of them have offered oral evidence.

8. To paraphrase, a conclusive opinion on the validity or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner, or acceptance of the defence of the respondents in the Original Petition, could not have been done by the learned Family Court at this