Anshida vs Mahin Kutty

Gopinath P, J.

The petitioner in this original petition is the petitioner in O.P. No.506 of 2013 on the files of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha. O.P. No.506 of 2013 was a petition filed for return of certain amounts and gold ornaments. The original petition was posted for evidence on 17.11.2021. However, on that day, there was no representation for the petitioner and the original petition was dismissed for default.

The petitioner, therefore, filed R.P No.20 of 2021 for restoration of O.P. No.506 of 2013, which was allowed by the Family Court, Muvattupuzha on payment of cost. The operative portion of the order of the Family Court in R.P. No.20 of 2021 in O.P. No.506 of 2013 dated 06.07.2023 reads thus :-

“In the result R.P. 20/2021 is allowed on payment of cost Rs.1000/- each to the respondents on or before 25.07.2023. Petitioner to file memo for the receipt of cost by the respondents acknowledged by either of the respondents. For reporting compliance call on 26.07.2023.”

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner paid the cost of Rs.1000/- to each of the respondents as directed by the Family Court to the counsel appearing for the respondents before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha as can be seen from the endorsement on Ext.P6 memo filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the Family Court, thereafter, considered the matter on 26.07.2023 and dismissed R.P No.20 of 2021 holding that the memo as directed is not filed.

The learned counsel points out that in terms of Ext.P5 order dated 06.07.2023, the cost has to be paid on or before 25.07.2023. It is submitted that the endorsement by the counsel for the respondents on Ext.P6 memo shows that the cost was paid and the memo was filed on 25.07.2023. Therefore, it is submitted, there is no reason for the Family Court to have dismissed the R.P on the finding that the memo as directed has not been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without standing on any technicality, the petitioner is now willing to deposit the cost ordered at Ext.P5, before the Court.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused Exts.P5 and P7 orders and having noticed the endorsement on Ext.P6 memo, we are of the opinion that Ext.P7 order can be set aside on condition that the petitioner deposits the cost as directed to be paid in terms of Ext.P5 order before the Family Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. On such cost being deposited, R.P. No.20 of 2021 will stand allowed and the Family Court will proceed to consider and dispose of O.P. No.506 of 2013 on its merits.

The original petition is disposed of as above.