ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
Challenge in this O.P.(FC) is against Ext.P6 order. The petitioner and the respondents were parties in O.P.No.305/1996 on the file of the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda. In the said O.P., Ext.P2 decree was passed and to execute the decree, E.P.No.27/2012 was filed by the petitioner and that E.P. was dismissed for default by the Family court, by Ext.P4 order, which shows the reason that there was no bidder for the property. The petitioner sought restoration of the E.P. by filing E.A.No.5/2013. That also was dismissed by the Family Court by Ext.P6 order stating that there is no bar in filing fresh E.P. It is this order, which is under challenge before this Court.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The fact that a fresh E.P. could have been filed by the O.P.(FC)No.1551/13 2 petitioner cannot be a reason for dismissing E.A. filed by the petitioner for restoration of the E.P. Therefore, we cannot sustain Ext.P6 order. In such circumstances, we set aside Ext.P6 order, allowing Ext.P5, E.A.No.5/2013 and E.P.No.27/2012 in O.P.No.305/1996 on the file of the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda will stand restored. The Family Court will proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
The O.P.(FC) is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.
acd O.P.(FC)No.1551/13 3 O.P.(FC)No.1551/13 4