Court clarifies that previous orders do not preclude a party from reapplying based on a prior offer.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order, asserting that, even though he was ready to pay Rs.43,476/-, as demanded by the 2^nd respondent in Ext.P5, for the vehicle in question to be registered in his name, it was not accepted by the said Court; and that it has issued the impugned order, directing him to hand over the vehicle to her.

2. Smt.Nisha Mathew – learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that, Ext.P6 order has been issued in IA No.7/2024 filed by the 2^nd respondent in OP No.12/2024; and that the said application is on record as Ext.P5. She showed us that, in Ext.P5, the 2^nd respondent has undertaken that she is willing to transfer the registry of the vehicle to any of the parties, provided she is paid Rs.43,476/-. She argued that, when her client is ready to pay the said amount, the learned Family Court ought not to have issued Ext.P6, but to have allowed him to pay the money and have the registration of the vehicle in his name.

3. When we examine Ext.P6, we noticed that the learned Family Court had not taken note of any submission by the petitioner that he is willing to pay Rs.43,476/- to the 2^nd respondent. In fact, in the first paragraph of the said order, it has adverted to the offer of the 2^nd respondent, as mentioned in Ext.P5; but did not pass its order based on the same, presumably because the undertaking as aforesaid either was not made or was not pressed by the petitioner.

4. That said, if the petitioner is willing to pay the money, as mentioned by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P5 application of hers; and to have the vehicle registered in his name, nothing stops him from making an appropriate application before the learned Family Court to such effect.

5. We do not see how such a liberty is precluded by Ext.P6 order, which only directs the vehicle to be given to the 2^nd respondent since she is the registered owner of it and because its use by someone else can expose her to unnecessary legal complications.

In the afore circumstances, we close this Original Petition; however, clarifying that this will not preclude the petitioner from moving the learned Family Court appositely making his offer in tune with what has been stated in Ext.P5 application.

Sd/-