HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No. 1895 of 2007 Date: 18-11-2010 Between: M/s. Dhariwal Brothers, a proprietary concern, represented by Proprietor Sri Dilip Kumar Dhariwal ………… Petitioner And Smt. Saro jani Devi Dhariwal and another …… Respondents HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No. 1895 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner-first defendant filed this Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia seeking to assail the order, dated 05-03-2007 passed in Memo S.R.No.923 of 2005 in O.S.No.1032 of 2003 on the file of the X Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder the lower Court rejected the said memo filed for recording the compromise on the ground that there was no mention as to for what amount the parties have settled the matter out of Court and that the memo was not signed properly. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-first defendant that in terms of the said compromise, certain amounts were paid to the first respondent-plaintiff and necessarily in the event the compromise is not recorded, the amounts have to be refunded and the matter has to be proceeded in accordance with law on merits after regular trial. In support of the same, the learned counsel placed reliance on the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in C.R.P.No.2765 of 2006, dated 16-06-2006, whereunder, in similar circumstances, the lower Court ordered for refund of the amount and the learned single Jude upheld the same in Revision. In view of the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to discredit the petitioner-first defendant and necessarily it follows that he would be entitled to get back the amounts, if any, paid if the compromise, in pursuance of which the amounts were paid, is not recorded. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, disposed of directing the first respondent-plaintiff to return the amount, if any, received from the petitioner-first respondent in pursuance of the said compromise. No order as to costs. ____________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, HACJ Date: 18-11-2010 YCR/IVD