HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI REVIEW C.M.P.NO.4712 OF 2010 in CRP No.4135 of 2006 DATED:27.8.2010. Between: K. Venkateswara Rao …Petit And: 1. Union of India rep., by General Manager, South Central Railw Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad and others. …Respond This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI REVIEW C.M.P.NO.4712 OF 2010 in CRP No.4135 of 2006 ORDER: Originally, the above CRP was filed assailing the order 21.2.2006 passed in E.P.No.103 of 2003 by the learned XIV Additional Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. On 13.4.2010, as it is represented that no cause survive adjudication, the above CRP was dismissed as infructuous. While so, on the review C.M.P, the matter is listed today unde caption ‘for being mentioned’. Now, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended tha subject matter was compromised between the parties and in pursuan the compromise, the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.55,97 against his claim of Rs.77 lakhs, for which an award was passed an said compromise was recorded. It is further submitted that on representation made by the learned counsel for the respondents tha cause in this revision petition does not survive for adjudication, this rev petition was dismissed as infructuous inadvertently and therefore, no f orders are necessary in this revision and hence, the CRP may be clos recalling the order of dismissal as infructuous. The learned Counsel for the respondents contended that tha Court below having satisfied with the reasons condoned the delay in the compromise petition and that the compromise was recorde I.A.No.953 of 2003 in the above O.P.,and in view of the orders pa therein, the O.P. was also closed on 21.2.2006 with an observation th award is fully satisfied as the compromise has been entered into bet the parties and therefore, the subject matter of this revision petition become infructuous. In view of the rival submissions made before this Court, I am opinion that the Court below has exercised its discretion in p perspective and recorded the compromise. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that in view recording of the compromise and the closure of the O.P., I feel that no o are necessary in this CRP. Therefore, the revision petition is closed consequently, the order of dismissal as infructuous, dated 13.4.20 recalled. Accordingly, the Review CMP is ordered. _____________________ Justice T.Meena Ku Date:27.08.2010 NN HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI REVIEW C.M.P.NO.4712 OF 2010 in CRP No.4135 of 2006 DATE:27.8.2010.