IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 27966 of 2008(S) --------------------------------------- OP.1727/2004 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MARYKUTTY, D/O.JOSEPHINE, THYVILAKOM HOUSE, VALIYAVELI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- GEORGE MARKOSE, S/O. GEORGE PRAKRAMOR, KAMBIKKAKAM HOUSE, VALIYAVELI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.V.MADHURIPAN PILLAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.27966/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION NO.1727/2004 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 3.1.06 IN OP. 1727/04 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P3:- COPY OF THE PETITION SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER. P4:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT TO EXT.P3. P5:- COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DT. 8.7.08 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN IA. NOS. 3455/06 AND 3457/06 KN OP. 1727/04. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.27966/2008-S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 25th day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This writ petition is filed by Marykutty, the wife of the respondent. The prayer made in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P5 after allowing I.A.Nos.3456/2006 and 3457/2006 in O.P.No.1727/2004 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.P5 is an order passed dismissing the application for condonation of delay and setting aside the ex parte decree passed against the petitioner and others. The main O.P. was for permanent prohibitory injunction, mandatory injunction and recovery of possession and compensation. The petitioner and others who were respondents in the O.P were declared ex parte and based on the proof affidavit case was decided. Thereafter, the petition for condonation of delay and the petition to set aside the ex parte decree were filed, which were dismissed by Ext.P5 common order. Though the other parties against whom Ext.P2 decree is passed have joined with the petitioner herein in the proceeding to set aside the ex parte decree which was dismissed they are not a party in this writ petition. As against the petitioner, there was another writ petition No.27965/2008, which we have set aside by a separate W.P.(C) No.27966/2008 -:2:- judgment. Here the petitioner is aggrieved only because of the compensation awarded against the petitioner. Since we have already set aside the decree as against the petitioner in the connected matter, the compensation awarded as against the petitioner is also set aside. To the limited extent as above, the writ petition is allowed. (P.R. Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms