IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 RFA.No. 459 of 2007() --------------------- OS.587/2004 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM ................................................... APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS IN THE SUIT --------------------------------------------- 1. ANTONY,S/O. LATE EMMANUEL ALIAS MANI, PAZHANGATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALLARPADAM DESOM,VALLARPADAM P.O., PIN 682 031, MULAVUDAD VILLAGE, KAYANANUR TALUK. 2. LINDA ANTONY,W/O. V.J.ANTONY, 5TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR, II NO. 752, BANGALORE. 3. ADDL.APPELLANT NO.3 IMPLEADING * ADDL.APPELLANT NO.3 SHEILA MTHOMAS AGED 54 YEARS PAZHANGATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALLARPADAM DESOM,VALLARPADAM(P.O), PIN 682 031 MULAVUKADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK (AS PER I.A.NO.3856 OF 2007 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED 1ST APPELLANT IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.3RD APPELLANT AND IT IS RECORDED THAT THE 2ND APPELLANT IS ALSO THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF DECEASED 1ST APPELLANT). BY ADV. SRI.R.D.SHENOY, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR RESPONDENT/ PLAINTIFF IN THE SUIT ------------------------------------------ T.P. TOMY,S/O. THALIYATH PAULOSE, C.C. 28/1406 ,K.P. VALLON ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-20, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. ADV. SRI.B.N.SHIVSANKAR FOR R1 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------ R.F.A. No. 459 OF 2007 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 16th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Heard. I.A.No.4068/2009 is a compromise petition filed by all parties and attested by their respective counsel. We went through the compromise petition. We do not find anything unlawful about the compromise arrived at by the parties. We record the above compromise. In view of the terms of the compromise, we set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and remand O.S.No.587/2004 to I Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. It is made clear that the above remand is only for the purpose of enabling the court below to refund ½ of the court fee paid on the plaint. The appeal is allowed by way of remand in terms of the compromise. Refund the full court fee remitted on the appeal memo through the appellant or the counsel. (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ps