1. The petitioners say that they are the bonafide purchasers of the property in question and assert that their transaction was completed even before the 1st respondent obtained an attachment before judgment over it, in O.P.No.28/2021. They say that, however, since the attachment brought over the property remains to their detriment, virtually incapacitating them from selling it further, they moved I.A.No.10/2024 to have the same vacated; but that it has been rejected through the impugned order; and hence that they have been constrained to approach this Court through this Original Petition.

2. Sri.Jayachandran - learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently argued that, when it is fully conceded that the transactions - on the strength of which the property was purchased by his clients - were completed much prior to the date of attachment ordered by the learned Family Court, namely on 08/01/2021, it could not have issued the impugned order affirming it, even when his clients had become full owners of the property much prior. He thus reiteratingly prayed that this Original Petition be allowed.

3. Sri.Sayed Mansoor Bafakhy Thangal - learned counsel for the 1st respondent, however, refuted the afore submissions, saying that the matrimonial disputes between his client and 2nd respondent had arisen much prior to 2016; and that she executed the documents in an inventive and confutative manner, by involving her brother, namely the 3rd respondent, solely to defeat his client's claims. He submitted that when the subject matter of the Original Petition is the property itself, the learned Family Court was without error in having issued the impugned order. He thus prayed that this Original Petition be dismissed.

4. The learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 - Sri.C.M.Mohammed Iquabal, however, affirmed that the submissions of Sri.Jayachandran are on terra firma because, his clients had sold the property in question to the petitioners much prior to the date of the order of attachment. He also thus prayed that this Original Petition be allowed.

5. We have considered the afore rival submissions, on the touchstone of the various materials available on record.

6. We notice from the impugned order that the learned Family Court has gone into the matter in detail and has refused to lift the attachment, suspecting the credibility of the transactions as are asserted by the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3. We do not think that it is necessary for this Court to enter into the merits of the rival contentions at this stage, because the Original Petition is of the year 2021; and, in normal circumstances, it should be now ripe for trial and disposal.

7. We, therefore, put it to Sri.Jayachandran whether his clients intend to sell the property immediately, to which, he initially answered that they propose to do so; but then added that they are willing to wait for a short period of time, if this Court is inclined to fix such for the purpose of the disposal of the Original Petition itself.

8. We have no doubt that the afore submission of Sri.Jayachandran is the best available to all parties because, as we have said above, the Original Petition has been pending for more than three years now and should, therefore, be attempted to be disposed of without any avoidable delay.

9. That said, even though this Court does not fix time frames for Family Courts to dispose of matters, being fully cognizant of the huge workload they endure, we are certain that an exception ought to be carved in this case, taking note of the peculiar factual circumstances, particularly the rival claims over the property in question. It would be improper to incapacitate the petitioners from dealing with their property ad infinitum; and in that view, surely we will be justified in directing the learned Family Court to dispose of the Original Petition itself at the earliest.
With the afore perspective in mind and with the full consent of both sides, we allow this Original Petition and vaca