IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2010 / 26TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 26467 of 2010(R) -------------------------- OP.312/2006 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SHEEJA BEEVI, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.SULAIMANKUTTY, KOTTAKKUNNU HOUSE, MANGARAM,KONNY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA) SRI.A.SHAMSUDEEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SHARAFFUDEEN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O.SULAIMAN RAWTHER, BUSINESS, THADATHUVILA PADINGATTETHIL HOUSE, PUTHUPALLY KUNNAM CHARAMMOODU MAVELIKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIOINER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF O.P. 312/06 OF THE FAMILY C OURT, THIRUVALLA. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA 2801/07 IN O.P.312/06 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION IN IA 260/09 IN OP 312/06 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA 260/09 IN O.P. 312/06 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. /TRUE COPY/ R. BASANT & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 26467 of 2010 R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The facts revealed in this Writ Petition are strange. The petitioner/wife had filed O.P.No.312 of 2006 claiming amounts from the respondent, her husband. When the matter came up for hearing on 20.8.2007, there was a representation by the counsel that the matter has been settled and that a compromise petition shall be filed. The court below accepted that representation and proceeded to pass the order in the O.P. accepting the compromise. But actually the compromise petition was not filed. It is now submitted at the Bar that eventhough the parties have hoped to settled the matter and file a compromise petition, the compromise was not reached and hence compromise petition could not be filed. W.P.(C).No. 26467 of 2010 2 2. The situation was strange. The court had disposed of the Original Petition accepting the compromise, which does not exist. The petitioner filed an application to review the order. The court below, obviously dissatisfied that such an incorrect representation has been made, directed the Original Petition to be restored to file on deposit of cost of Rs.2,000/- The matter was posted for payment of cost. On that day, for want of representation, that petition was dismissed for default. The application filed for restoration was dismissed by the court below by the impugned order. 3. Now it is submitted that the amount of Rs.2,000/- has already been deposited before the court below as cost. Counsel only prays that the Original Petition may be ordered to be disposed of afresh on merits. Learned counsel for the respondent raises no objection. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that this Writ Petition can be allowed. 4. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed. W.P.(C).No. 26467 of 2010 3 b) The impugned order is set aside. c) O.P. 312 of 2006 shall stand restored to file and the court below shall dispose of the same afresh as expeditiously as possible. d) The amount of Rs.2,000/- shall be credited to the funds of the Taluk Legal Service Authority. We hold that the respondent is not entitled to the cost deposited as the respondent is also party to the incorrect and wrong representation made before the court below. (R.BASANT) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm