IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 6350 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.471/1994 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. CELINE JOHN W/O.LATE P.M.JOHN, PATTASSERY HOUSE, JUDGE'S AVENUE, IIND CROSS ROAD, LISSIE JUNCTION, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. SHAFI PATTASSERY, S/O.LATE P.M.JOHN, PATTASSERY HOUSE, JUDGE'S ANENUE, IIND CROSS ROAD, LISSIE JUNCTION, KALOOR,ERNAKULAM. 3. SAM PATTASSERY, S/O. LATE P.M. JOHN, PAPTTASSERY HOUSE,JUDGE'S AVENUE, IIND CORSS ROAD, LISSIE JUNCTION, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY SMT.M.M.JASMIN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE LAW SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LIMITED. SHANMUGHAM ROAD BRANCH, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031. REP. BY ASSISTANT GENERAL MAGAGER, R.S.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.SANKARA NARAYANAN. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2 MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6350 of 2010(O) APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.471/94 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, ALAPUZHA. Ext.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COUORT IN A.S.591/97. /True copy/ P.A. To Judge P. BHAVADASAN, J --------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6350 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition the petitioner seeks the following relief : To issue a direction to the learned subordinate Judges Court, Alapuzha not to pass judgment and decree without taking into consideration the settlement entered into by the plaintiff and the defendant in O.S.471/94 on 24.2.2010. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that even though a settlement was provisionally entered into between th parties regarding the matter, the court below is disinclined to accept the same. 3. In the suit for money, the petitioner is the defendant. Suit was dismissed by the court holding that the plaintiff had failed to produce the relevant documents. An appeal as A.S.591/97 filed before the appellate court. Appeal was allowed and remanded for fresh disposal. Copy of the judgment is produced as Ext.P2. 4. Parties appeared before the appellate court to adduce evidence. In the mean while the parties tried for settlement. It is W.P.C.6350/10 2 stated that the plaintiff consented to receive Rs. 1,00,000/- initially but wanted concurrence of the higher authorities. The second defendant accepted the same. A compromise was belatedly submitted in 2010 and requested to post the case before the Adalat. It was so done on 23.2.10. 5. The suit could not be settled in spite of two hearing in the Adalat as the counsel for the 2nd respondent expressed their difficulty in recording the settlement without getting sanction from higher authorities. However, due to the direction issued from the Sub court, the matter is sent back to lower court. 24.2.2010 again the parties mentioned about the possibility of a settlement. Disregarding the request made by both sides the case is posted for judgment on 27.2.2010. The limited prayer before this court now is that a direction may be issued to the Sub Court, Alapuzha to refer the matter to Adalat as there is a possibility of settlement and wanted two week's time to report about that settlement. 6. The petitioner’s counsel pointed out that the 2nd respondent, Bank is amenable to accept Rs.1,00,000/- in full and final settlement of the claims. The counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that bank has tentatively agreed to such a W.P.C.6350/10 3 course, but it needs sanction of higher authorities. However, it is pointed out that the lower court will be directed to refer the matter to Adalat so that another effort could be made for the settlement of the suit. The respondent has no objection to such course. 7. The Sub court Alapuzha is directed to refer O.S.471/94 to the Adalat so that the parties may attempt to arrive at a compromise. 8. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sent a copy of the judgment to Sub court, Alapuzha. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. Sou.