IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 RSA.NO. 1117 OF 2009() ------------------------------------- AS.94/2007 OF I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM OS.1101/2003 OF I ADDL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANTS - APPELLANTS - DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. P.K. JOSEPH, AGED 54, S/O. LATE JACOB, PANDIPARAMBIL, PANANGAD, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 2. MRS. ALICE, AGED 46, W/O. P.K. JOSEPH, -DO- 3. MRS. MARY, AGED 78, W/O. LATE JACOB, PANDIPARAMBIL, PANANGAD, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.E.M.MURUGAN RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SETHUNATH, AGED 41, S/O. LATE P.G. MUKUNDAN MENON, JAYA NIVAS, PALLIPPATTU THEKKEMADOM, PANANGAD, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. P.M. SURESH BABU, AGED 39, S/O. LATE P.G. MUKUNDAN MENON, JAYA NIVAS, PALLIPPATTU THEKKEMADOM, PANANGAD, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. MR. ANTONY, AGED 36, S/O. MARY, VELIYIL PANDIPARAMBIL, PANANGAD, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. VALSA, AGED ABOUT 30, D/O. MARY, VELIYIL PANDIPARAMBIL, PANANGAD, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.R.MOHANAN FOR R1 SRI.K.M.SANAL FOR R1 SRI.ANUP T PAUL FOR R1 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== R.S.A. No.1117 of 2009 & I.A. No.986 of 2009 ==================================== Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T This appeal is brought up at the instance of defendants and in challenge of judgment and decree of learned First Additional District Judge, Ernakulam in A.S. No.190 of 1997. That appeal was preferred by the defendants against judgment and decree in O.S. No.1101 of 2003 of the court of learned Munsiff, Ernakulam. But as there was delay of 282 days in preferring the appeal it was dismissed as time barred consequent to dismissal of the application to condone delay. That judgment and decree are under challenge in this Second Appeal. Challenge in this appeal is on the substantial questions of law framed as per order dated 3.11.2009. Now parties have settled the dispute outside Court and filed compromise vide I.A. No.986 of 2010. Parties seek a decree in terms of the compromise and in substitution of the decree of the court below. 2. I have heard counsel on both sides. The terms of the settlement are set out in I.A. No.986 of 2010. R.S.A. No.1117 of 2009 & I.A. No.986 of 2010 -: 2 :- 3. Though first appellate court dismissed the appeal as time barred, it amounts to confirmation of judgment and decree of the trial court. Hence the fact that appeal was dismissed as time barred need not deter this Court from recording the compromise and passing a decree accordingly. The compromise is accepted and recorded. Resultantly the Second Appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise. A decree is passed in terms of the compromise. The compromise shall form part of the decree of this Court. No costs. Interlocutory Application Nos.2551 and 2552 of 2009 shall stand closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv