IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.NO. 202 OF 2005() --------------------- {OS.860/1999 OF PRL.M.C.,IRINJALAKUDA} .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/JUDGMENT DEBTORS 1, 3 & 4: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. VELAYUDHANKUTTY, AGED 63, S/O.KOPPADAN KOCHU RAMAN, KALAKKALLU-PULICHODE DESOM, AMBALLUR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. BABU, AGED 34, S/O.KOPPADAN KOCHUNNI, KALAKKALLU-PULICHODE DESOM, AMBALLUR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. VARGHESE, AGED 42, S/O.VENGATTUPARAMBIL KOCHUVAREED DO. KALAKKALLU-PULICHODE DESOM, AMBALLUR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) RESPONDENT(S)/DECREE HOLDER: --------------------------------------- THANKA, DO. KUNDILAN VELAYUDHAN, KALAKKALLU-PULICHODE DESOM, AMBALLUR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR FOR R1 SRI.P.VISWANATHAN FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP.NO. 202 OF 2005 :: :: ORDER ON I.A.No.550/05 IN CRP.NO. 202 OF 2005 DISMISSED. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) 31.3.2010. JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. To Judge. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.202 of 2005 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010 O R D E R The judgment debtors, proceeded against for violation of injunction and ordered to be detained in Civil Prison for a period of 5 months, have filed this revision challenging the propriety, correctness and legality of the order passed by the learned Munsiff, Irinjalakuda. 2. When the matter came up for hearing, counsel on both sides submitted that the parties have reached a settlement by which the judgment debtors (Condemners) proceeded against for violating the decree have compensated the loss sustained by the decree holder. Though the loss caused by the demolition of the retaining wall had been quantified by the Commissioner as Rs.1,600/- in 2002, it is submitted that the present revision petitioners, for resolving the controversy and terminating the proceedings, have paid a sum of C.R.P.No.202 of 2005 :: 2 :: Rs.7,500/- as compensation. It is also reported that such sum has been received by the decree holder. It is also reported that the decree holder has already sold away the property covered by the decree. 3. In the light of the settlement arrived, as submitted above, I find, the order passed by the court below challenged in the revision deserves to be set aside and it is ordered accordingly. Civil Revision Petition is closed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy//