Harilal, J.
The petitioner herein is the 2nd respondent in O.P. No.624/2013 on the files of Family Court, Pala. The petitioner's son - Finish K. Thomas is the 1st respondent in the above Original Petition. The 1st respondent and the petitioner in the above Original Petition are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 02.06.2005. Thereafter, the marriage has been dissolved by Family Court, Ernakulam and the respondent herein has filed the above Original Petition against the petitioner and her son seeking a relief, inter alia, for the return of gold ornaments and money.
2. The petitioner filed objection denying the averments in the Original Petition along with a counter claim. On completion of the pleadings, the matter reached at the stage of evidence. In that context, the respondent filed I.A. No.1005/2014 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner so as to examine witnesses. Though the counsel for the petitioner has urged for adjourning the trial to a date after 20.1.2015, on the reason that the petitioner's son is unable to avail leave from his Company in Italy; but the learned Judge allowed the above I.A. and appointed a Commission to conduct trial. The Commissioner was also directed to file a report before 22.11.2014. If the trial of the case is completed, without providing an opportunity to the 1st respondent in the Original Petition, he will be put to irreparable injury and great loss. This is the grievance projected in this Original Petition (Family Court).
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below has not considered the inconvenience of the petitioner's son, in giving evidence in trial, in its correct perspective. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of his evidence, the petitioner herein and her son would not be able to defend the case properly and thereby the Court below would not be able to dispose the matter in a just and fair manner.
4. We are unable to agree with the said submission as such as it is for the parties to co-operate with the trial for disposing of the case at the earliest. It was also incumbent upon the petitioner's son to make him available for trial on the scheduled date. Moreover, the petitioner has not filed an objection to I.A. No. 1005/2014 stating her son's inability to appear before Court for trial before 20.01.2015.
5. In the above context, we are unable to find fault with the Court below for scheduling the case for trial and appointing the Commission for taking evidence on the application filed by the respondent herein. But, considering the fact that adjudication of a lis on merits is always desirable rather than early disposal of the case on technicalities, we are taking a lenient view on terms. Going by the Order scheduling the case, which is extracted in the Original Petition, it is seen that the trial is scheduled to be commenced from 10.11.2014 onwards. But, it is ordered that the trial will stand postponed to a date immediately after 20.1.2015. The learned Family Court Judge is at liberty to fix a day after 20.01.2015. The Commissioner is directed to file report within two months thereafter. The petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the respondent within a period of three weeks from today, failing which the Order passed in I.A. No.1005/2014 will stand in force.
This O.P.(FC) is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE.
Sd/-
K. HARILAL, JUDGE.
jjj