IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 AS.No. 24 of 2003(C) -------------------- APPELLANT: 1ST DEFENDANT ------------------------ NAZEER S/O. ABDUL RASHEED, RESIDING AT M.R.BUILDING, PERUMALA, MANICKEL MURI, PULLAMPARA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFF/2ND DEFENDANT ------------------------------------ 1. SHARAFUDDIN, S/O. ABDUL MAJID, ALFA COTTAGE, IRINJAYAM, VETTARPELY MURI, ANADU VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (*) 2. SHAJAHAN, S/O. ABUSHAHUMAN, N.S.COTTAGE, PIRAPPANCODE, MANICKEL MURI, MANICKEL VILLAGE. (SECOND RESPONDENT DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.3226/2008) BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AS.No. 24 of 2003(C) ORDER ON I.A.NO.268/2003 IN AS.NO.24/2003 DISMISSED. SD/-P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE SD/-T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE 08/08/2008 \\TRUE COPY// P.A to Judge P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I.A. No.3225/2008 and A.S.No.24 of 2003 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T J U D G M E N T RAMAN, J. I.A.No.3225/2008 is a compromise petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure signed by both the parties and their respective counsel. It is agreed that the appellant and the first respondent have settled their dispute out of court and there is no lis pending between the parties. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. One fourth of the court fee as sought for be refunded. P.R.RAMAN, Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I.A. No.3394/2008 in I.A.No.3225/2008 in A.S.No.24 of 2003 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008 O R D E R O R D E R RAMAN, J. I.A.No.3225/2008, was a compromise petition reporting settlement between the parties and requesting one fourth of the court fee. We allowed the said petition as prayed for as per our judgment dated 08/08/2008. It is now stated in the correction petition, I.A.No.3394/2008, that the request for one fourth amount is a typographical error for half of the court fee. We find that the appellant is entitled for refund of half the court fee in accordance with provisions of the Court Fee Act when the matter is compromised. Therefore, the mistake is evident. Correction is allowed. Suo moto we review the judgment and allow the refund of half the court fee. Accordingly, in our judgment dated 08/08/2008, wherein one fourth of the court fee is referred to, the figure 'half' of the court fee may be substituted. P.R.RAMAN, Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms